Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Template:Cyclone_other_basin[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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template has no documentation and is not used in any pages. MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close this as a delete. NoahTalk 00:15, 24 September 2019 (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:Investors Exchange[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused stock listing template that now never can be used, because IEX has exited the stock listing business. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (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:Habib[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox. Since the song comes from the album there is no additional navigational benefit in having this. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete insufficient navigational benefit. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (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:2016 PDL Central Pacific Division[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:47, 24 September 2019 (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).

Module:StringReplace/obsolete[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems implausible to me that there are still wikis that have outdated copies of this module over 7 months after it was undeleted for the purpose of syncing its code to other wikis. A post on the creator's talk page on April 16 asking if this module is still used has received no response. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 23 September 2019 (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:Brexit sidebar[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. Great discussion, but there doesn't appear to be consensus for any particular course of action. Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Brexit sidebar with Template:United Kingdom in the European Union.
largely duplicative templates. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Brexit-only template is redundant, and should be merged into the one on British membership of the EU. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. Both templates are about different things in their substance. One is about the UK in the EU, the other about the UK trying to leave. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they both concern the UK’s EU membership - be it accession, membership period or potential secession. -Ssolbergj (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - Brexit is a specific topic and the merged one would be WP:TOOLONG. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge - per FOARP argument. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Note that {{United Kingdom in the European Union}} is already a very large template; if I show all the hidden sections, it's four times the height of {{Brexit sidebar}} on my computer screen. I count 106 links in the UK in EU template's Brexit section, versus 36 in the Brexit template, and there's probably a good deal of overlap between the two. Among the 70+ links not in Template:Brexit, why aren't they? Proposed referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement is surely in scope, for example, but it's only on UK in EU. If length of template is an issue, despite the collapsed sections, the solution is to move all but the most important Brexit links from UK in EU to Brexit. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Basically the same topic. The length of the merged template shouldn't be an issue when using hidden sections. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All of the links on Template:Brexit sidebar were already on Template:United Kingdom in the European Union bar Proposed second Scottish independence referendum which I've now added. Template:Brexit sidebar is now redundant; worth 'merging'/removing to avoid confusion. Legendiii (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To follow, I've realised I've missed Postcards from the 48% but I'm sure we can find a space for that if it is notable enough to include. Otherwise, as above. Legendiii (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FOARP: & @John Maynard Friedman: This should hopefully allay any WP:TOOLONG-related fears? Legendiii (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see a strong case for merging in almost every case where either is used. The big exception is the Irish Border: if this merger happens that that article will have to have "UK in EU" sidebar and an "Ireland in EU" sidebar (which opens the can of worms per MOS:Ireland-related articles - I've had my fingers burnt in the past by failing to recognise sensitivities so I tread very cautiously if at all).
      • So Plan B: I wonder is it possible to have a Brexit-only sidebar that is capable of standing alone where needed but is embedded in the UK in EU sidebar for all other contexts? it would be exactly the current content and appearance of the Brexit section of the current UK-in-EU. Is that possible? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @John Maynard Friedman: I understand your concerns - I think this (Brexit and the Irish Border) has only become an issue because of the UK-EU relations and not because of Ireland-EU relations, therefore there is no need for an Ireland in the EU sidebar in this article. Instead, if you still wanted to ensure there was an Ireland-related sidebar alongside the UK-EU one, you could use the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland sidebar with the 'foreign relations' section expanded/shown? This would be a solution that wouldn't require splitting out the template and adhere to MOS:Ireland-related articles. Legendiii (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree that the two templates are mostly duplicative. --RaviC (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. Besides, Template:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum is just titled 'Brexit' and contains the same stuff in a third template, on the same pages. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, although I believe we can keep both the navbox and a sidebar without merging per WP:NAV: only the two sidebars ought to be merged. Legendiii (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – One sidebar is enough, as many articles are present in both. — JFG talk 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge I agree that the current situation is not tenable, but surely see the need for a Brexit-only sidebar. A lot of Brexit-related stuff are actually UK-internal stuff, and is not directly related to EU. Perhaps we should remove all the Brexit-related content from the UK-in-EU-template bar the most important ones? Or embed the Brexit-sidebar within a collapsible as suggested by John Maynard Friedman. As it is now, Brexit it taking all the focus in the UK-in-EU-template, also when used on EU-articles not having any relation to Brexit at all. Merging would be my third choice. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge: overloading a template which is about nearly 50 years of UK-EU history with one about 3 years of recentism is not appropriate. Less is more when it comes to both templates—a user on a Brexit article should be seeing a dozen or so highly relevant Brexit articles in the sidebar, and a user on a UK-EU article predating Brexit should be seeing a dozen or so articles about milestones in joining, key issues and a couple of top-level Brexit articles. — Bilorv (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed solution: I have tried to sketch a possible solution that would both be a merge and a split at the same time, namely moving almost all Brexit content from the UKinEU template into the Brexit sidebar template. I think that would be a good start, and then we can work from there. If implemented, the new Brexit sidebar will look like this, and the new UKinEU will look like this. The idea is then to replace the UKinEU template with the Brexit sidebar on almost all Brexit-related articles. This will address the issue of duplicates, while still treating them as different topics and preventing the UKinEU from being taken over by recentism. Ping to other participants in this discussion for feedback: UnitedStatesian, Ssolbergj, Mardus, FOARP, John Maynard Friedman, Nyttend, P199, Legendiii, RaviC, Pigsonthewing, JFG and Bilorv. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent solution: approved. — JFG talk 12:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I'm afraid I don't see that anything significant has changed: the issue is not just one of tidiness. Your UKinEU SB still has a significant Brexit section that is different from the Bx SB and is independently editable and thus will expand again. In ten years time, maybe (!), that would work but I really can't see it working now. What happened to the idea of embedding the (otherwise free-standing) Bx SB in the UKinEU SB? Are nested sidebars supported? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have considered that myself, and that is why I only think there should be high-level Brexit things in the EUinUK sidebar. I am not per se against nesting sidebars, but I think it perhaps would be awkward, and that is why I haven't really looked into it. Feel free to do so, if you like. For me the biggest difference, and what I think will make it work, is that we then should replace the EUinUK sidebar with the Brexit one on a lot of pages. Right now the Brexit sidebar is transcluded on only 12 pages, while the EUinUK is on 129 pages. This, in addition to the collapsible layout of the UKinEU sidebar, made it the natural place to insert links to new Brexit articles. If the numbers are opposite (w.r.t Brexit articles), I think editors naturally will use the Brexit sidebar for such links instead. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly support this proposal—it is exactly the kind of scope change I was trying to describe in my !vote above. Brexit is a significant part of UKinEU, but not the main part, so one subsection of seven is appropriate weight for it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds great, thanks for all your good work on this (and the ping). UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Do not merge first. Then make a new proposal about separating Brexit content from the UK in the EU content. The 'UK in the EU' sidebar may link to an article about Brexit, which will show the Brexit sidebar anyway. The two topics are far too different and divergent for merging. I'm on the fence about nesting the Brexit sidebar into the 'UK in the EU' sidebar. -Mardus /talk 11:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think some additional paring down from the proposed solution above is a good idea, but I am persuaded that a merged sidebar would just be too big. --Bsherr (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. These are clearly different, if related, topics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 26 September 2019 (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/2019_September_23&oldid=919300029"