Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

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) 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugbyleagueyearcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused category navigation header. All uses have just been replaced by with {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}, via Template:YYYY in rugby league category header. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PPEMES (talk) 09:24, 16 April 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:Durban International Film Festival

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) 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Durban International Film Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational box for a film festival without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant a navigational box. Besides the festival's head article in the box header, literally the only other blue link in the entire box is an isolated article for a single year's running of it -- otherwise, the box literally comprises 42 redlinks. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a far higher proportion of those 42 redlinks actually exist, but this isn't needed to link one thing to one thing when they can just as easily crosslink each other in body text. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:43, 15 April 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:SWL

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) 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SWL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In 2009, there was an idea to silently encode semantic information in the wikicode of articles to create a Semantic Wikipedia, and so this experimental template was created. See for example the wikicode of Sodium/potassium/calcium exchanger 4 where the connection "mutation_results_in" has the target "amelogenesis imperfecta". This template was added to around 140 articles on genes, but the idea didn't catch on. This information does not appear to be used by anyone, these gene–disease relationships are already encoded in much better detail in WikiData. Recommend deletion. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note in this edit[1], I disabled all the code in the template, to make it stop populating non-existent categories. If the template is not deleted, this will need to be fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: that edit appears also to have emptied all the categories that do exist, as they now appear on the empty categories report. Was that your intention? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @UnitedStatesian. I think it has now been fixed by User:Þjarkur, in this edit[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are still turned off. Probably not worth the effort to fix them now. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great idea, but it obviously didn't fly. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure note - just for documentation, this deletion would have effects for anyone reading and examining this research paper - doi:10.1093/database/bar060 Shyamal (talk) 03:22, 23 April 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:Private Practice

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:Grey's Anatomy. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Private Practice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Exactly the same as the Private Practice section on the Grey's Anatomy template. TheTVExpert (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why are these links in the Grey's Anatomy template to begin with? There's a reason why there are separate templates for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, for example. Drop links to the main articles for Private Practice and Station 19 in a "related shows" section of the template, there's no reason to lump them together.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is my understanding that the Grey's Anatomy template is for the franchise, not just the show. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before October 2019, the template was arranged in the exact same way I'm describing. Are there any other templates that lump in two independently-notable shows with multiple articles? Is there a particular benefit to having these two shows in the same template? I don't see why we can't just go back to the old template arrangements, especially since there isn't a Grey's Anatomy (franchise) article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Grey's Anatomy. PPEMES (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we merge Better Call Saul into Breaking Bad as well?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete per nom. All of the Private Practice links can (and have been) added to the Grey's Anatomy template without overwhelming it. - Brojam (talk) 01:20, 19 April 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:Hatching table

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:Tinctures as a collapsible section. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hatching table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tinctures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Hatching table with Template:Tinctures.
A subtopic into the general topic, for better overview?PPEMES (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: If the historical hatching systems are placed in a collapsible list at the same time. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 15 April 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:Coats of arms of the autonomous oblasts of Russia

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:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous oblasts of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous oblasts of Russia with Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia.
Please see below. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A navigation template shouldn't have 1 item. --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only one autonomous oblast.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:59, 15 April 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:Coats of arms of the oblasts of Russia

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:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats of arms of the oblasts of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Coats of arms of the oblasts of Russia with Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia.
Please see below. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support without the sea of red links. A navigation template should navigate between articles. This huge navbox has only 3 links. --Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Gonnym.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:56, 15 April 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:Coats of arms of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats of arms of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Coats of arms of the Soviet Republics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Coats of arms of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics with Template:Coats of arms of the Soviet Republics.
Quite interrelated topics, isn't it? Perhaps better merge the contents? PPEMES (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is. the SSRs were first-level divisions of the country, and the ASSRs were second-level divisions.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:55, 15 April 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:Whitney family of Connecticut

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. For the record, at the time that this discussion was closed, it was being used on the following articles If someone would like a copy of the family tree for use in a particular article, let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whitney family of Connecticut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Bush is descended from more than one dozen of families. It is not meaningful to create a template for each of them and this specific family have no significance. GZWDer (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the contents as such are valid, they better be extracted into Whitney family (possibly per WP:LISTIFY). That would be unproblematic, as seen in numerous family articles. PPEMES (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the content is encyclopedic as prose, it is encyclopedic as a diagram. I'm not sure it's best in navbox style, but that alone is not a reason to delete. --Bsherr (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is unproblematic. In fact it's standard in family articles. It's whether essentially containing a family article diagram in a template that I question. PPEMES (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that it were used in multiple articles, it would be appropriate as a template. --Bsherr (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid diagrams, at least this large, typcially doesn't really qualify as navigation bar template content. I'm not sure this one does. PPEMES (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll relent on the keep vote, only because I don't think the diagram is really suited for any article we currently have. --Bsherr (talk) 01:25, 23 April 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).

Module:PakistanSuperLeagueProgression

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 2020 April 28. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:PakistanSuperLeagueProgression (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Uw-inappropriateX

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) 23:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-inappropriate1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-inappropriate2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-inappropriate3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created user warning template series seems intended to be used to warn users about edits that are "inappropriate", but the template fails to identify any relevant policy or guideline concerning what constitutes an "inappropriate" edit, undermining the rehabilitative purpose of user warning templates. Absent that, labeling an edit "inappropriate" is needlessly vague and hopelessly WP:BITEy. For edits that are "inappropriate" because they are vandalism or disruptive, specific user warning templates already exist for that purpose. Bsherr (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The uw templates that we have now are better worded ("Please refrain from making edits to Wikipedia" isn't really the right message), better defined (as you noted), and have greater specificity. I can see the need for a more general template, but the uw-vand and uw-disruptive series already accomplishes this in a satisfactory fashion. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bsherr's rationale. This is likely to deter newbies but doesn't actually explain what has been done wrong. Better templates exist for specific transgressions --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, unhelpful. At worst, a disgrace to policies and rulesets available for intervening with other users. PPEMES (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Inappropriate" can refer to many things, from vandalism containing profanity to off-topic article edits. The templates are also too harsh in tone, potentially failing WP:BITE. There is also a Template:Uw-innappropriate3 that is a duplicate of Template:Uw-inappropriate3 and which I have tagged for T3; see also this RfD for an explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please bite these templates per nom. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:05, 17 April 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:Uw-contact

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-contact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant in scope to {{subst:uw-socialnetwork}}, deficient in links, and less frequently used. (Compare this to that.) The warning about personal information is covered by {{subst:uw-pinfo}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur that consolidation is appropriate here. Template:Notcontact was recently redirected to Template:Not a forum for a similar reason. --Bsherr (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PPEMES (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and rename the {{subst:uw-socialnetwork}} to {{subst:uw-contact}}. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:07, 17 April 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:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office/1

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 G8 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no links. Apparent test page, no longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2. Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}} otherwise. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:23, 15 April 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).