Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

June 26[edit]

Template:Infobox streamer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ST47 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work; even if it did, not necessary to have a separate template from {{Infobox person}} (for example see Ninja (gamer), where the normal infobox is sufficient). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:41, 26 June 2021 (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 Pornstar[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ST47 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a working template - and even if it was, it should not exist independently from {{Infobox person}} (note the previous merge of {{Infobox adult biography}} at TfD). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (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:No pass[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template has no substitutions (See: here), and only 26 transclusions (It has 446 but 420 of those are from {{Done/See also}}). The line height of the text is large resulting in strange formatting for no particularly good reason. It uses a character icon which are discouraged (MOS:ACCESS#Links). And I can't see that many uses to declare a "No Pass", and if an editor ever did, using |1= of {{Xmark}} would be more appropriate. So should be deleted Terasail[✉️] 22:38, 26 June 2021 (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:DYKfile[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:DYKfile with Template:DYK talk.
Both templates are used to mark pages that have been on DYK on the Main Page. The difference is the categories a tagged page is placed in, and the fact that for some reason dykfile is not placed on the talk page.

Since they both use the same text, and already have categorization check in place, merging them shouldn't be an issue. The placement of the template on the files should also be moved to the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not seeing a good reason to, plus there are thousands of articles that use these and we don't want to cause an issue on thousands of pages if we get this wrong. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One template has a summary format while the other provides more details. This functionality might be combined, with parameters to control the level of detail displayed but doing this in a transparent, non-disruptive way would be mainly busy work. What's the problem and what's the benefit? If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to both:
    • The C of E, why would we get this wrong? The people handling the merging of templates are editors with the template editor user right and any merge happens after testing to make sure the code is correct. However, even if a bug does go through, what's the worst that can happen? These templates have text and categorization. If the bug is in the text, then the worst is that someone viewing the page read a typo. If the error is with the categorization, then the pages are placed in the wrong category for a short while. Since the pages aren't moved by a bot, then there is no watch list spam even if the worst happens and the category has a mistake.
    • Andrew, both templates offer the same text, saying one is a summary and the other isn't is just incorrect. One template does have an optional |entry= for the text that was used, but so? A lot of templates, including this, have optional parameters for different specific usages, we don't create a template for each usage. And regarding the busy work, if you aren't the one implementing it, why do you care what work other editors do? I'll never understand that argument. Regarding the benefit, having 1 less template duplicate functionally and then having to update it when something changes - also, tags like this are placed on talk pages, not on the page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Gonnym noted, the tags are placed in different spots - {{DYKfile}} is on the file itself, {{DYK talk}} is on article talk. {{DYKfile}}'s placement matches other similar file templates, eg {{Featured picture}}, {{Featured picture set}}, {{picture of the day}}, and I'd be uncomfortable with changing DYKfile's placement while leaving the others where they are. I'm more neutral on the template merge itself, though since the placement is different between the two templates today, it may be confusing to merge the two while the placement continues to be context-dependent - therefore, keep. Shubinator (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm normally a mergist, but in this case, the functionality is different enough that I see more downsides from potential issues than upsides from reduced maintenance burden. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's handy to have namespace-specific templates in order to more easily detect improper usage. Daask (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Shubinato. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is it I only come to this part of the project when a "this template is up for discussion" notice rudely parks itself in an article or discussion page I was reading? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no benefits giving for merging templates, they have different functionality and it would just create an unnecessary cleanup job. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I agree, there should be one template. They do not have sufficiently different functionality as evidenced by Gonnym's last comment. 2) That said, I do not see this particular template as sufficiently worthy to park itself on the file's main page. It is not an achievement that a file is selected for DYK. At best, this should be placed on both talk pages. 3) As such, neither of these should continue to exist. The real best home is {{article history}} (and since DYK bot is being worked on, I bet I can sell Firefly on updating or using that page instead). --Izno (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (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).

NBA 2K League Rosters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 -FASTILY 05:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and ESports rosters are not notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2021 (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).

Topic (Continent)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 July 4. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2021 (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:Navbox Canada[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 , following two weeks of discussion and appropriate advertisement to the relevant projects. (noting the proposal described in the nom is more of the "delete, while converting existing usages" variety). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Navbox Canada with Template:Navbox.
This is a wrapper of Module:Navbox which changes the appearnces of the navbox. These changes have several issues such as it adding an icon next to the title which shouldn't be there per MOS:ICONDECORATION and removes the alternating background colors for groups making it more difficult to differentiate sections. The navbox header is also about 10% taller than normal navboxes which both looks weird and gives these navboxes more prominence than others. Finally from a purely esthetic point of view I find it very ugly to have two completely different navbox styles on one page, often with normal navboxes both above and below these weird ones, as can be seen at Alberta. My proposal would be to stop using {{Navbox Canada}} and instead use the normal {{Navbox}} without this problematic styling. --Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about templates like Template:Brazil topics? Well I guess then this is a WP:CONTENTFORK as noted in the discussions linked by user:trialpears. Do you have a link to that RfC? Catchpoke (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an aside. You can probably find it in the archives of template talk:navbox. Izno (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the information and you should provide it so I can verify the accuracy of your statement. Catchpoke (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is an aside. You are free to peruse the archives yourself. Izno (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2021 (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:Undelete[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has barely ever been used, is formatted very strangely, and is not what I expected when I searched for this. Subst and redirect to Template:DRV links. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:49, 26 June 2021 (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:2019–20 Kategoria Superiore table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspaces uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 27 June 2021 (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).

Quantities of computing information[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. With all editors except the nominator voting keep, this is a WP:SNOW close. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Both templates contain WP:NPOV violations, and depending on the revision (as there are currently edit warriors pushing a non-consensus revision over the objection of other editors), WP:OR and WP:V violations. The encyclopedia would be better off without these tables if they continually contain inaccuracies, original research and use Wikipedia's voice to suggest that what the real world is doing is not what it is doing.

  • Delete all as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in a version prior to edit warring. Possibly replace JEDEC with Memory for binary K, M, G. JEDEC are WP:RS but no defining body for units and prefixes. --Zac67 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in a prior stable version, possibly with added "deprecated" remark in recently deleted column. −Woodstone (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution. Why has no one opened an RfC yet? (For others, the discussion is all at Template talk:Quantities of bytes.) JBL (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer. The templates are both used and useful so there is no rational argument for deleting them. Anyone wishing to suggest an improvement can do so on the 'bytes' talk page, as pointed out by JayBeeEll. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with JBL; nomination for deletion is completely inappropriate. An RfC and constructive engagement in discussion would be appropriate. I note that Template:Quantities of bits at time of nomination (and now) contains no content that is not reliably sourced or that is not fully endorsed and standardized by the relevant defining bodies; it is also linked to the relevant WP articles that give the relevant citations, invalidating the cited reasons for deletion. The remaining two templates can be similarly adjusted (by removing the Memory/JEDEC column), removing such concerns altogether. —Quondum 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The request is simply absurd, per the already cited reasons. It is an attempt to force a POV by the nominator, who has a personal bias against any of the binary prefixes and wishes to eradicate them where ever (s)he can, as demonstrated by countless reversions of valid material by many editors and constant edit warring about the issue. The content of these tables is unambiguously supported by reliable references, such as standards definitions, from US and world standards bodies. kbrose (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, Dondervogel 2, Quondum and kbrose are the three edit warriors pushing their edits without consensus on two of the three templates. Currently two of the three disagree with objective reality, our sources, and all three are giving undue weight to units that are neither widely adopted or endorsed by a significant amount of the technology industry. Reality doesn't work for these edit warriors though, because goddamnit some standards group that apparently is very serious said something and by golly even if nobody listens to them, Wikipedia will. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping confirm my earlier view. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the confirmation, you've definitely helped the situation a lot by referring to this nomination as "childish" and I'm sure that alone means we can ignore content policies and guidelines and just put whatever the fuck we want in articles without regard for accuracy or verifiability. But do prattle on, you've brought so much to this conversation so far, don't stop now. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it should be clear to all that real edit warrior is the proposer of these deletions.−Woodstone (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, die hard edit warrior here, insisting we use consensus instead of what three editors randomly decide after the other three stop participating in the discussion. But sure, edit warring was the issue here on my side, not the lack of consensus on theirs (but the repeated reversions even after having this brought to their attention). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – contrary to Locke's unexplained and unjustified assertions above, I do not see any evidence that these tables "continually contain inaccuracies [or] original research". They state uncontroversial and trivially verifiable definitions. I have not personally seen any evidence at all that they have caused problems in article-space, of the sort a reader might actually be inconvenienced by, which would be my criterion of interest here – not whether editors with a strong POV dislike these tables for ideological reasons. This TfD discussion would appear to be an unnecessary continuation of a pointless dispute at MOSNUM, which was a non-starter and has produced, as could have been predicted, no consensus. That poor overly flogged and mangled equine corpse has long since been reduced to dust, and all the physical information contained in it, whether measured in decimal or binary units, has been dissipated by the wind. My tuppence is that the status quo broadly works, and that editors with a strong ideological opposition to binary units in any circumstances seem to be the predominant source of disruption and extended talk-page essays here – not any actual problems caused by templates that do not display any incorrect information. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – the templates just use units that are well documented in standards. Whether a particualr usage of a parameter in the template in a particular article is appropriate is a case for MOS.  Stepho  talk  00:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - when I saw one of these being nominated for deletion, my first action was to click on "what links here". Dozens of articles, with no attempt to address whatever issues in each of those articles. This should be a speedy close under WP:SNOW. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:45, 29 June 2021 (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:2020–21 Ghana Premier League table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and mainspace uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (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:2020–21 Azerbaijan Premier League table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and hasn't been updated as the mainspace uses a different table with the information filled out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (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:2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League uses a different table with accurate information whereas this one isn't used and hasn't been updated since December 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (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).

NHL Western Conference Standings Templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 July 6. Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (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).

NHL Eastern Conference Standings Templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 July 6. Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (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).

2014 USA Team Handball Club Templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 - creator of the pages has requested deletion. JBW (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mainspace article exists for these templates to be used and I could find nothing that a league or championship of this kind exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stared to create this templates. But I forgot them. Sorry. But you could delete them. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (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:1999 FIFA Confederations Cup group tables[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and there already exists a table for both Group A and B on their respective pages and the mainspace also uses a different table. This template is unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 June 2021 (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/2021_June_26&oldid=1085548595"