Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 14

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 merge to Template:Infobox settlement. Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australia state or territory with Template:Infobox settlement.
Merge into {{Infobox settlement}}, as was done with {{Infobox U.S. state}}, and delete. Certainly nothing fancy here that isn't supported by {{Infobox settlement}}. 9 usages in mainspace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Usage numbers are indeed low, begging the question as to whether the template is accomplishing anything the settlement template isn't. AlexKitfox (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Another merge for the sake of merging. This infobox requires no maintenance, the content rarely changes, no extra fields are required and so there is little to be gained by merging. It's just a waste of everyone's time to do so. @ProcrastinatingReader:, could you please demonstrate that there is nothing fancy here that isn't supported by {{Infobox settlement}} by showing an example of one of the uses converted to use IS? Also, I notice that US states now have two infoboxes, the second of which is {{Infobox U.S. state symbols}}. Why? If state symbols are not part of IS does this mean that we are going to have to create {{Infobox Australian state and territory symbols}}? If so, what's the point? --AussieLegend () 04:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a waste of everyone's time to do so It is a volunteer community. Nobody said you have to implement the TfD. I must admit, I was wondering what oppose argument you'd have this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it is a valid point. Instead of cherry-picking one thing from my post that you think that you can point-score with, can you answer the other questions? Can this infobox be merged completely into IS or are we going to have to create another infobox for the things that IS doesn't do? Since you don't think a merge is a waste of time, suurely you have time to do this? --AussieLegend () 10:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This will undoubtedly turn into a mess as it usually happens with infoboxes and Australian templates, but I'll jump in. Not every merge has to do with maintenance, and some, like this, have to do with a having a consistent style used between location articles. There is no reason why the style of these 9 pages should be different to the half a million other articles using Template:Infobox settlement. And while the maintenance of this template might be minimal, any change to the settlement infobox will have to be manually done here - and that is if it's even remembered and then if the local consensus of a very small group of editors allows for it. Having one consistent style in one location, allows for both easier and faster discussions for the community, and a consistent and familiar style for readers. --Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • any change to the settlement infobox will have to be manually done here - What change done to IS would have to be done to this infobox? Just because someone changes something in IS, doesn't mean other infoboxes have to have the same change.
      allows for both easier and faster discussions for the community That's a bad assumption. Changes to IS can be made as is necessary. Merging will not change that at all. If anything, it may result in a slowdown for various reasons.
      My opposition is basically that all this does is make work for someone. As for style, I don't see a lot of difference in the style, which is why I asked for an example. --AussieLegend () 10:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge please merge or do something about this template. When I read article on any city on mobile it appears in the first sentence causing a lot of visual clutter and discomfort. It gives page lead an ugly view too. 103.255.6.247 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and User:Gonnym.--Darwinek (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I support merging, since that "Australia" template seems kind of redundant. Friend505 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and User:Gonnym. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make Wrapper. I think this could be easily made a wrapper, and that would make it consistent with {{Infobox U.S. state}}, however I am ok with a full merger. BTW, are you going to nominate {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}}? Techie3 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 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. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero usages. Duplicate of {{Infobox military conflict}} - here's the diff. Proposing deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 14 August 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no longer in use after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:43, 15 August 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).

ISO 639 name from code templates

[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 after replacement. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently around ~1300 templates in Category:ISO 639 name from code templates and Category:ISO 639 name from code templates without a category which produce a plain text language name. This is a nightmare for maintenance. Template:ISO 639 name has been changed to work with Module:ISO 639 name which removes the need of all these templates reducing the work to the template entry point and the module. If the TfD passes, the plan is to convert all direct "ISO 639 name x" usages to use Template:ISO 639 name. User:Trialpears will be assisting with the tagging of all templates which should happen soon. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging in progress. Will take a few hours since bots are required to keep down the edit rate. --Trialpears (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that nominator intended to write: Template:ISO 639 name has been changed to work with Module:ISO 639 name ...
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly in the area of template design, optimising server performance is important, and it's frequently done by users with a great amount of impact. It's not very hard. I've done it myself from time to time, but it's best done by people with a knowledge of the templates in question and the articles they serve.

Hope that helps.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:38, 16 August 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. Izno (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted because the contents do not have enough in common to justify being linked. This is despite the extremely broad title which I must say probably makes little sense to the vast majority of readers. I think it means 'Medical treatments that don't involve intravenous access' by the title but then it actually does (plasmapheresis) and contains a variety of very medical (cf also plasmapheresis) and more quixotic treatments (cf hyperthermia therapy).

I think it's better if this confusing template is just deleted. It is not a useful navigational aid and is unlikely to become one. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:28, 14 August 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. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the navigation provided for all the songs on this album in the {{Pitbull songs}} navigational box. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:53, 14 August 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).