Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Template:History of Arda[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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a series of AfDs, all entries except Music of the Ainur redirect to History of Arda. No longer useful for navigation. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2020 (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:2013 South Africa President's XV IRB Tbilisi Cup squad[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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a squad for a minor tournament and the team in question is not even the senior representative side for its country. It is highly unlikely that readers will have heard of this competition, let alone want to link between different members of this squad. – PeeJay 12:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (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).

College football independents records[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 pending the outcome of this related AFD. Should the AFD result in a "keep" or otherwise still be present, this discussion should be revisited. If the page is to be kept as a WikiProject or User-space subpage, then I see no reason why they could not be subst' onto the page and then deleted. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 22#Independents football records templates prior to 1956, it was determined that these templates should be broken up by geographical region, which has now been done. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#NCAA independents football records for successful deletion of similar templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin question: Jweiss11, while my first inclination is to close as "delete" per the lack of opposition, I note that all of the listed templates are only used on one page, and if deleted that page would lose all of the (what I can only assume is) important information about these records. Is deletion still required in this instance? Primefac (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, the page in question, List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1869–1905), should be deleted because it is poorly-formed given the new organization of independents records templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2020 (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:2013 NASL fall season results[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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 February 2020 (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:University wikibreak[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:Atschool. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:University wikibreak and Template:Education wikibreak with Template:College wikibreak.
Very similar purpose and content; very minor wording difference that can be accounted for by a parameter if needed.

Or we could replace all three with {{Atschool}}, and delete them.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - almost the same exact template. It's about time we start cleaning up all these multiple forks for one word variations. WP:NOTABLOG. --Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Gonnym, but with the caveat the combined template be named {{Education wikibreak}} as it's the broader term. Also, I'd like to see the transclusions, which are not many, updated such that the redirects have no transclusions and can eventually be deleted. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, I'm very curious what advantages you see by deleting the redirects. I personally don't see any benefits with it requiring contentious and unnecessary userspace edits, can be convenient for future users and in my experience the maintenance benefits are so minimal they're not even worth considering. Deleting them also requires a week long discussion which has a considerable opportunity cost. If there is a consensus that there is a benefit for deletion I guess such a project should start by looking at the low hanging fruit instead of actively used redirects. Also on a semi related note: I got kind of curious about how many completely redirects there are and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Request a query#Zero transclusion cross namespace redirects to template space to find out. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears My rationale is to encourage template creation similar to WP:RFDd10. I'll be interested in hearing back the results of your redirects to templates, though. Since consensus can change at any time, someone may want to do a more specific college-focused or university-focused wikibreak template. Or, they may want to do a similar, more specific wikibreak template but done in a different way with different parameters, coding, and text. Doug Mehus T·C 21:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, that's interesting and relevant for article space, but I don't think it's particularly relevant for templates. If someone creates a new template at {{University wikibreak}} it is likely to still be redundant to {{Education wikibreak}} and having a redirect in cases like these will likely stop the creation of some redundant templates. Having a redirect also helps searching with a recent example being me looking for {{if preview}} but thought it was called {{preview other}}. Since a redirect would have helped me here I created one to aid searching in the future. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think there's any harm in preserving these templates, particularly as they've been used. School, university, and college are different things and I don't see the harm in letting editors display this on their user page. In particular, the text on the education template is very bland and the sort of generic text designed by committee that I'm not sure the editors who selected the alternate templates would want. I don't really see how this change will contribute positively to editor retention nor the encyclopedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging, or replacing with {{Atschool}}, will not prevent anyone from displaying a equivalent message on their user page. The benefit to the encyclopedia will be through the reduction of the template maintenance burden and the ccognitive load on editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least, per nom, et al. As Andy hints, these could merge further to {{Atschool}} and I'm fine with that result, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to {{Atschool}}. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Atschool}}. I used to use the university wikibreak template, but it feels like the template gives out the same message as the other template: "the user is in school and is usually busy". I think merging them all into {{Atschool}} would be helpful, since it removes a lot of burden for people who wants to use the templates. INeedSupport ❄️ 04:27, 5 March 2020 (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).

Category:Redirects from route numbers and Template:R from route number have been nominated for deletion[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 NA. Notice given, nothing more to do here Primefac (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Category:Redirects from route numbers and Template:R from route number have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't !vote here but at the other thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 5 February 2020 (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:R to anchor 2[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:R to anchor. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Clarification: this merge will result in one template that will not auto-assess the printworthyness of the redirect, but also allow for a parameter to set it. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R to anchor 2 to Template:R to anchor.
The only difference between these templates (which is not documented anywhere) is that the "2" version removes this parameter code: |printworthy={{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy|yes|no}}. The effect of that code is to auto-categorize a redirect as unprintworthy if it is not specifically flagged as printworthy. Given discussions like Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Printworthiness and several prior ones, it's become clear that robotic auto-assessment of things as printworthy or not isn't practical and is undesirable. Thus, either this line should be removed from the base template or it should at least be changed to |printworthy={{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy|yes}}. If the latter, then probably also remove documentation of this parameter so people stop using it over time, or annotate it as explicitly deprecated, since we are using separate {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} templates, and there's a proposal (at the above-linked thread) to build this feature also into {{Rcat shell}}. It's not practical to do this on an rcat-template by rcat-template basis with rather randomly configured code that other editors are inspired to try to WP:TEMPLATEFORK their way around. Regardless, there is no reason to have both a template that auto-unprintworthy-izes unless forced not to, and an "anti" version that thwarts it. The correct behavior is not auto-guessing printworthiness, and we only need one template for that. PS: This rcat merge does not implicate any categories, so I'm using TfD not CfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a merge; I oppose the second optional proposal of changing the auto-cat from unprintworthy to printworthy. After removing the line and being reverted, I went to WikiProject Redirect where it was explained why it was doing this. As I explained on the talk page, I believe the technical templates (anchor, list and section) have no relevance on the type of redirect so it should not matter at all. As this auto-categorizing was causing me issues somewhere else, I reluctantly created this copy without the line. Side note SMcCandlish, care to explain why you've not notified me as the creator (per WP:TFDHOWTO#3)? --Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym:, there is no "proposal of changing the auto-cat from unprintworthy to printworthy". It's a proposal to to stop auto-catting at all, since doing so is undesirable (maybe even impermissible, since bots aren't permitted to auto-make the distinction, either). The replacement code would accept an explicit value of "yes" (actually, better code would use {{Yesno}} to detect other positive values like "Y" or "true"), and otherwise leave the parameter blank, instead of forcing it "no". Notification: I just forgot; I've been doing a spate of rcat cleanup nominations between CfD and TfD, and apparently just lost track of it all. I know we've had an argument today at another page, but I promise this was not intentional. Anyway, peeps from WPREDIRECT seem to be changing their tune lately about auto-catting as [un]printworthy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect notified of this TfM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it doesnt auto cat I'm supporting this as that was my original issue. Also, happy to know not notifying was not intentional. --Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No merge. Delete "R to anchor 2" along with its misleading documentation, and redirect it to "R to anchor". The autocategorization should not be removed from {{R to anchor}}. The creators had it in mind that few of the anchor redirects were suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia, so any impacting change should be filtered through the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, who are responsible for printed CD versions. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 12:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just placing here so any closer can read this - while Paine Ellsworth supported the merger, this isn't actually what was proposed. Anchor 2 does not assign printworthyness and if merged, will cause all transclusions to become unprintworthy. It won't help either in making them all printworthy, as they aren't all. So a merge with keeping the auto-cat will not work. --Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I misread the nom. Thank you, Gonnym, for correcting me! PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gonnym and Paine Ellsworth: To be clearer, the proposal is to have one template, that doesn't auto-categorize things as printworthy or not, because that's not a machine decision, and we have separate [un]printworthiness R cat templates for this, used with judgement by people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        These things should not be decided without input from the 1.0 team as I stated above. I don't care for the precedent you seem to be trying to set here. Printworthiness is not something that can be determined by a random local consensus. There are several redirect templates that auto-categorize either to the printworthy or unprintworthy category. Some, like {{R to anchor}}, can be changed from one to the other with a parameter. Anchor redirects are usually not suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia. When they are suitable, they can easily be categorized as printworthy. There is no need that I can see to change that, and there is certainly no need to alter template {{R to anchor}} without first checking with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If editors want to alter printworthiness, the 1.0 team must be included in the decision, because they are responsible for what goes into a printed version of this encyclopedia. Ref.: WP:Pushing to 1.0 and WP:Printability. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge in principle, per nom, but please sandbox first and test on a few redirects. We should probably keep the redirect for the merged out template, just in case not all the transclusions get updated. Doug Mehus T·C 19:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge including removal of automatic categorization as unprintworthy. Looking through the first few transclusions of {{R to anchor}} none of them strike me as obviously unprintworthy and I find it unlikely that the tagger considered that tagging them with {{R to anchor}} would categorize them as unprintworthy. When a printworthyness as been explicitly given using the first unnamed parameter that should be kept as the tagger has considered the printworthyness but otherwise the automatic categorization is not accurate enough to be used. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merge means no longer auto-categorizing redirects to anchors, then do that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 29 February 2020 (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).

Nomination for merging of Category:Redirects from catchphrases / Template:R from catchphrase → Category:Redirects from slogans / Template:R from slogan[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 NA. Notice given, nothing more to do here. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Category:Redirects from catchphrases (and Template:R from catchphrase) have been nominated for merging with Category:Redirects from slogans (and Template:R from slogan, respectively). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the categories' and templates' entry at Categories for discussion. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't !vote here, but at the other discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 5 February 2020 (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:Iron Soldier[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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only three articles. ミラP 04:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The template was created to provide easy access to read all three Iron Soldier articles... Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A total of three articles. There isn't an Iron Soldier (series) article. Nothing that can't be done in the article body or with a 'see also' section. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as harmless and useful, but if it is deleted, add appropriate cross-links to the affected articles. This can be in a "see also" section or a "Games in the same universe" section or something similar. If there is a reasonable possibility of a 4th game with this title in the next year or two, then Strong keep as the template will probably be re-created at that time anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's WP:HARMLESS and WP:USEFUL. The navbox has a total of three links, which are at this point already mostly in the articles ("A sequel...", "it is the sequel to..."). The last game was released in 2000/2001 and there hasn't been any news about an upcoming sequel. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient material to make a navbox useful. It's a massive amount of screen real estate; on anything but a tiny screen, it looks completely ridiculous with only three entries. Working mention into the text, into infobox feature for previous/next in series, and/or into "See also" is more than enough. We delete these near-empty navboxes routinely, and there's nothing special about this case. Not everything produced in more than one installment needs a navbox. PS: I stopped following the "navbox wars" about two years ago. If we've settled on a rough minimum number of entries (I was pretty sure we had or were close to it), then this should be integrated into WP:NAVBOX, or we'll never see the end of useless template noise like this one. The problem here is that micro-topical aficionados get into their fandom-full head that every possible feature on WP ever seen for any topic must be recreated for their special little interest. So, if we do not codify whatever the consensus criteria are, then fans of random stuff are going to lawyer that there is no rule against them having every imaginable navbox and whatever that they want. (That sounds harsh, but I'm a total drooling fanboi myself, over dozens of things; I just know to leave it at the door along with my costumes when I come to work at wikipedia. This ain't Fandom.com / Wikia. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, if there were a fourth article, I might say weak keep, but in this cases, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2020 (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/2020_February_5&oldid=963756915"