Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16
June 18 >

June 17[edit]

Template:Infobox climber[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following: |main_discipline=, |other_discipline=, |start_discipline,=|height=, |weight =, |start_age =, |partnerships=, |website =, |typeofclimber =, |namedroutes =, |highestredpoint=, |highestonsight=, |highestboulder=, |apeindex=, |knownfor=, |worlds =, |final_ascent=, |medaltemplates=, |updated =, |partner=, |children =, |parents=, |relatives=, |firstascents=. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another: |retirement= and |retirement_age=; |notable_ascents= and |majorascents=.
That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).
Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-category-notice[edit]

Unused notice of questionable utility. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from its appearance, it should be a substitution template. It even has the inline HTML comment found in substitution templates. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it appears to have been substed some 350 times, but basically not in the past 5 years. There's about 40 uses by someone else but not many of those are since 2019. I find the template similarly questionable in general however. Izno (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreign relations of the DPR and LPR[edit]

The DPR and LPR were puppet states of Russia and had no foreign relations. Aldij (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They did have recognition from a few other countries, although, looking at Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations, sourcing doesn't seem to be of the quality you'd want to write good standalone articles that go further than "X officially recognized Y". The navboxes have four and two links respectively, so not great, although there's no objection to recreating them if more articles can be written (hopefully with better sources). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination has nothing to do with the templates and is a political statement than of actual concerns with the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, nominated by a blocked user and I agree with WikiCleanerMan. xq 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep should be the default. Multiple relistings almost always indicate keep. It's not clear that there will be long term value for these templates, but at the moment they should remain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions or incoming links. No blue links to full articles in the body of the navbox. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Third reason in WP:TFD#REASONS says to delete when a template has no likelihood of being used. Three years is not a long time; similar templates have been populated over time. Many of the structured templates I created in Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country started off as bare-bone/transclusionless and now have increased usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are three blue links now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I do not see any blue links to full articles about the navbox's subject in the body of this navbox. The navbox has not been edited for content since 2022. It may be useful someday, but it is not useful for navigation yet, so it should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused template. No links to relevant full articles. The Banner talk 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transperth railway network diagram[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are several problems with this template. It is massive, and thus unusable in any article. The Airport line does not cover the full extent of its route as shown on File:TransperthRailwayMap.svg. The Morley–Ellenbrook line also does not cover the full extent of its route, which is meant to reach Perth station. The colours of each of the lines is incorrect (correct colours are shown on Module:Adjacent stations/Transperth). The size of the rail network makes this sort of template impractical and hard to read because the labels for each station have to be on either the left or right side, which results in the Ellenbrook line stations being listed in between the Joondalup line stations, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     "Massive" is subjective, not objective. And there are many route diagrams in use that are longer, wider, or both, than this one.
    • The Airport lane has been corrected.
    • The colours have been adjusted (within the constraints of the available icons).
    • The nature of route diagram templates is that (with rare exceptions) the labels are on the sides.
    • The Morley–Ellenbrook line has been repositioned separate from the Joondalup line.
    All in all, this objection sounds to be mostly WP:IDL. Useddenim (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Useddenim: Can you give some examples of other route diagrams that a longer or wider? It might help to see some other large routemap templates and where/how they are used. I believe that Template:Routemap is mostly used by single lines and not whole networks. Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp: See Category:System rail transport templates for starters; Template:S-Bahn Zentralschweiz RDT is one. Template:Midland Main Line RDT is considerably longer. And nowhere does it say that RDTs are only for single lines. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warren Railroad[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West-Midlands-Metro-Line-One[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it might be used again at some point. G-13114 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zhengzhou–Jinan high-speed railway RDT[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway signal mast[edit]

Unused railway related image template. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since it seems to be one of the better alternatives available for depicting these concepts. (I could see it being used in an article about a historical rail incident where signals were implicated, but no contemporary image of that signal aspect exists.) I'd also be interested to know if its creator has concrete plans for it. TheFeds 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virudunagar–Sengottai line[edit]

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arvind Kejirwal series[edit]

Duplicate sidebar template and misspelled version of Template:Arvind Kejriwal series. DB1729talk 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content does differ a little between the two. I suppose the solution is to merge the content under the correct spelling. --DB1729talk 13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the material to the properly titled template and I've replaced all usage and it can be safely deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rally Isle of Man[edit]

Navbox with two blue links in the body. DB1729talk 12:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_17&oldid=1229911618"