Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 18:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for a link from Wikipedia:Guide to Scribbling, as a "real but more complex module". Well, it isn't a real module if it was created and is used purely as an example. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - It might be useful as a tutorial example for people to look at, as it's a more realistic version than the code in the tutorial itself. It doesn't seem like it hurts anything to leave it. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 5 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).
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. There are some apparent unresolved issues in merging the templates and no consensus as to their resolution. Neither is there a consensus on the question of whether or not to merge generally, and discussion seems to have gone quiet. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company with Template:British campaign medals.
I am aware that this has been discussed by the creator at Template talk:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company. However, as later nationally recognised, why couldn't this simply be collected in one single template? PPEMES (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:30, 5 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).
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:Infobox criminal. Seems like we have reasonable arguments on both sides, but so as long as headcounts matter this looks like a consensus for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter with Template:Infobox criminal.
Surely this merits consideration? PPEMES (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:29, 5 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).
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:Mass notification. czar 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no documentation, no transclusions or links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as unused. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:54, 5 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).
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. czar 19:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox protest faction with Template:Infobox organization.
WP:INFOCOL. No unique variables. PPEMES (talk) 16:43, 5 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).
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) 00:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent articles (with attribution) per consensus in many prior discussions here at WP:TFD Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 5 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).
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. czar 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox is unhelpful for readers, as we have little to no articles related to the defunct Mars One. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 13:18, 5 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).
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) 17:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single entry template. Störm (talk) 11:37, 5 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).
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:Infobox university rankings. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox world university ranking with Template:Infobox university rankings.
Couldn't this be merged? PPEMES (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the challenge here is mostly the syntax and complexity. it would be helpful to see a merged template to know what is involved in merging the two. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think merging would be technically difficult. What's important is learning from past mistakes and arriving at an improved solution. Here is how I see it at first glance:
[1] Infobox university rankings [2] Infobox world university ranking
Title Ideal Unecessarily long
Underlying template Template:Infobox Ad-hoc
Ease of maintenance A bit tedious Quite complicated
Format of entries Near-identical
Handling of references Not standardized,
Sometimes hard-coded
Standardized,
Enforced in articles
Handling of years Not standardized Not standardized
Documentation Bare minimum Good
Visual style Ok Good
Categories Few Several,
Could be expanded
Use in articles small high

So I would suggest importing the design, categories, documentation, and missing entries of [2] into [1] using Template:Infobox, then expand the categories to include business schools and field ranks. [2] could then be redirected to [1], hopefully without problems. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantwiki2, I have not been able to find your proposed merged template code in the sandbox? Where is it? Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I began working on a universal template but soon got overwhelmed by design choices and some technical restrictions. I wanted to do Global-Regional-National-Local headers which would then be slit into sub-headers, but this restricts the number of entries in each category and leads to a rather nasty "#if:"-situation. So, after sleeping on it, I now think the most flexible and easy-to-maintain solution is to use separate headers for a variety of categories. Frietjes, the code is at Template:X16 for the time being (the example is just a small selection, the code is much larger). Note that there are no country tags; all countries share the same "national"-headers, which should not get too crowded any time soon. Currently it encompasses the following templates, with many additions:
* Template:Infobox university rankings
* Template:Infobox world university ranking
* Template:Infobox business school rankings
* Template:Infobox_Australian_university_ranking
* Template:Infobox Canadian university rankings
* Liberal arts colleges
* Law schools
* Engineering schools
* ... and more
If you like it then I will write the documentation. There are many new tags that require cleanup of some articles (mostly little-used tags); I can clean up the articles using the first two templates in the days following their merger, if the proposed code is accepted. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliantwiki2, could you put your code in Template:Infobox_university_rankings/sandbox? this will avoid the need to fight the bot that cleans X16. I will try to look at the code later today. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thank you! PPEMES (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ignore the documentation though. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 02:52, 9 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) 01:10, 5 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).
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 22. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 22 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).
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 13. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 13 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).
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:Norse people footer. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Baltic emporia with Template:Norse people footer.
While "Balic emporia" is a descent attempt to bring a proper overview, what actually binds the overview together is how it pertains to the wider Norse context. Hence a merge for synergetic overview end results, anyone? Intended for some "Geography" section within the destination template. PPEMES (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 5 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).
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) 00:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

expired, unused, unhelpful after administrative reform of Estonia. Substituted by template:Tartu Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 5 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).
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) 00:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

expired, unused, unhelpful after administrative reform of Estonia. Substituted by template:Võru Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 5 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).