Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Template:Tre Van Die Kasie[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 1. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UsernameSoftBlocked[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:UsernameSoftBlocked with Template:Uw-ublock.
We don't need two at once so merge UsernameSoftBlocked into uw-ublock. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:E563:6FD1:3949:3B5F (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or just delete it, it is not being used at all really, just a few very old user talk pages, and it is poorly worded and entirely redundant. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm in favour of blowing both of them up and starting over. No template should ever begin "you have been blocked" (unless in cases of really obvious vandalism only accounts) and certainly a massive box of text (especially that colour) is off-putting to any new user.--Launchballer 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use these with some frequency when blocking at WP:UAA. I very much want a template that says "You have been blocked..." in such cases, and if these were deleted would create a replacement in my user space. Note that these are used in the list of block reasons, which would need to be changed if th4ese are deleted or merged. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:List of publications intro[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was make subst-only. While our guidelines do say that article text should not be stored in templates, this is more of a "starter" template than anything, and the consensus is that since there is no "parent" page this could be transcluded from it makes the most sense to leave it in the template space. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template being used to store article text. Subst or LST-ify and delete. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the original creator of the template, I have no strong feelings about it — although LST-ifying seems like a marginally better idea than subst'ing, assuming it won't run afoul of some guideline (with all of WP's guidelines, it probably does). BTW, the template survived a deletion nomination in 2011, and was discussed by the Bibliographies WikiProject at that time. - dcljr (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but require substitution - Templates should not contain article content per WP:TG, and this is a great example of why. Articles containing lists should indicate the criteria they use to make the list. If later we decide to change the standard criteria we use for lists of prominent publications, we would want to change the template. However, we want article text to reflect the criteria that was used to make the list.
That said, having a template like this for boilerplate content to be substituted is helpful for standardization and to encourage and centralize discussions of best practices for such content.
The template documentation should be changed to say that it should always be substituted, and all existing transclusions should be substituted. Daask (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Daask's suggestion to make this substitute only. I would support using LST if there were a parent article for all of these. otherwise, it's strange to have "List of important publications in computer science" transcluding "List of important publications in pedagogy" (or the reverse). Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Match of the Day[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 31. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pokeinfoboxsmall[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 29. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Ahnentafel-compact4[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Ahnentafel. With a working version, there's a consensus to merge them in (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-compact4 with Template:Ahnentafel-compact5.
Pretty much all biographical articles that include an ahntentafel template employ 5 generations. In fact, I have yet to see an article that employs another amount. There ought to be a way to code this so as to create one sole dynamic ahnentafel which could be extended from 2 to 6 generations in one and the same template. This way, also the ahnentafel top and bottom templates could be merged into this one. More than 5, or at least 6, is very unlikely to be suitable for general screen resolution limitations. There can be written instructions about how to have fewer generations from the default 5 (just delete the # entries) or extend more (up to 6?) (just add # entries). Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Identical nominations merged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I modified the Ahnentafel-compact6 template so that all branches except level 1 were conditional in March 2015. It means that you do not have to fill in all the ancestors at a particular level, and it still looks good. This was particularly useful when using it for company histories (See Essex and Suffolk Water for instance). The only problem is that the empty rows create significant white space, which I could not find a way to reduce. I presume this might be an issue if the 4/5/6 level templates are merged. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You nominated all these template in December 2017 with the more or less the same rationale and the conclusion was "The result of the discussion was keep mostly due to the lack of working merged template example. If you would still like to see the templates merged, please feel free to create a working example demonstrating the merger and restart the discussion." I agree with that conclusion, and will add that a proposed template should not be insanely complex if you want my merge vote. If you want to see articles using e.g. template:Ahnentafel-compact4, press "what links here" in the menu, and choice one of the articles Christian75 (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I support merging the templates but only under the condition that you create a working version of the merged templates, test it out, and make sure that it works in your user space, prior to merging them in the general article space. However if you are unable to get a working version of it in your user space that actually meets the requirements of the existing templates, than I oppose it since you would be in danger of breaking the existing templates. I would point out to you that nothing is stopping you from creating a merged version of these templates in your own user space, even if this merge vote ends up going in the direction of opposition. So if this vote fails, I strongly encourage you to merge the templates in your own user space and come up with a working example of the merged templates.
Hopefully, though, you will be able to come up with a working example of the merged template in your own user space prior to the end of this vote, and link to it from this discussion so everybody can see it. I wish you good luck with that, but you will have to put in the effort to create and test the merged template yourself, and remember not to do it in the general article space but your own user space, using the template sandbox. Please look at Template:Template sandbox and Wikipedia:About the Sandbox for more instructions on how to do this. I generally agree with the conclusion from the last vote in December 2017, but I am willing to accept it if the merged template IS a bit complex, as long as it works correctly and does not have any issues and is tested properly. Anyway, if you are serious about this merge, please get to work on creating a working example of the merged template in your userspace sandbox so that you can show it to us. At the very least in your testing, you need to show examples of the template working at 4 levels, 5 levels, and 6 levels, and without serious issues like the whitespace issues Bob1960evens mentioned above. You can get help from somebody else if you find someone else willing to help you, but I do not have the time or expertise. Best of luck to you now, please get to work if you want this done! --Yetisyny (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support my experience is also that bios in which ancestry is significant enough to include, nearly always run to five levels. FactStraight (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Perhaps also the templates relying on the top and footer templates should then also be evaluated similarly. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replaced two Ahnentafel-compact6 with Ahnentafel templates on my user space. One has braches which are 3, 4 and 6 layers deep, and the other is mostly 6 layers deep, with one branch at 5 layers deep. Both appear to be indistinguishable from the original. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now generated two new diagrams, one with an Ahnentafel-compact5 and the same one with an Ahnentafel. The sizing of the boxes is somewhat different, but overall it still looks fine. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds like Frietjes got a merged version of the template working and Bob1960evens tested it out. I see no reason to oppose this. Excellent work! --Yetisyny (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there is to be a master template, it shouldn't be to a 6-generation one. I can't think of a single circumstance where I have looked at a page and said, 'Oh, now that I see who his mother's father's mother's mother's father was, all of his life choices and motivations become clear.' Five generations is often excessive, but 6 generations is just gratuitous. If the only available template is designed for 6, then there will be psychological pressure to fill it in, and the result will almost certainly violate some combination of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:NOR. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I do agree on 5 as default. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae and Chicbyaccident: the new merged {{Ahnentafel}} has no default. if you only add up to 3, you get two levels. if you add up to 7, you get three levels. if you add up to 31, you get four levels. the module/template automatically determines the number of levels, shows no more and no less than what is required. if you fill in only half of the tree, it doesn't add blank rows or empty boxes in places where boxes aren't needed (e.g., see Essex and Suffolk Water). Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the contribution! Alright. Though, I would advocate proposing 5 generations as default in the template documentation - 5 generations is almost always presented for ahnentafels of persons. Furthermore, what about the header and the footer? Would you mind merging these ones also, while perhaps copying needed code to eventual templates likewise relying on these sample templates elsewhere? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chicbyaccident, see Essex and Suffolk Water and the documentation for {{Ahnentafel}}. if you use {{Ahnentafel}} you don't need {{Ahnentafel top}} and {{Ahnentafel bottom}}. however, there are other places where {{Ahnentafel top}} and {{Ahnentafel bottom}} are used without one of the {{Ahnentafel-compactX}} templates. so, it's not clear that we want to entirely get rid of {{Ahnentafel top}} and {{Ahnentafel bottom}}, or certainly not without replacing them with something else in places they are used without one of the {{Ahnentafel-compactX}} templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Transwiki maintenance[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. OP checkuser blocked. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki is no longer used. Because transwiki is now deprecated, cleanup of all it's components is a good idea. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Copy to Meta[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. OP checkuser blocked (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki is deprecated so this is no longer needed, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-USGov-FCC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:PD-USGov. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Steve Largent Award[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. —Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a team award only. It causes clutter for players like Steve Largent and Russell Wilson. RoyalsLife 02:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; award is not defining to the subject such that it should be a dimension of navigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as award is not defining....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Rams MVP[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. —Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template has to do with a team MVP and is irrelevant. It only causes clutter with guys like Eric Dickerson, Aaron Donald, and Todd Gurley. RoyalsLife 02:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; award is not defining to the subject such that it should be a dimension of navigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as award is not defining....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Rams Rookie of the Year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. —Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a team Rookie of the Year award and only causes clutter for players like Aaron Donald and Todd Gurley. Only league awards should be kept. RoyalsLife 02:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; award is not defining to the subject such that it should be a dimension of navigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as award is not defining....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pittsburgh Steelers Team MVP[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. —Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This causes clutter for many players and is irrelevant because it is a team award, not league. RoyalsLife 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; award is not defining to the subject such that it should be a dimension of navigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as award is not defining....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as it mainly focuses on only one team and not the rest of the league. 216.7.225.80 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21&oldid=835917922"