Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 5

< July 4
July 6 >

July 5

Template:Maiden voyage sinkings

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 no consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As these ships have little to do with one another, this does not seem to be a suitable topic for a navbox. Half of them are redlinks anyway. Instead, this seems a lot more appropriate as a category. --woodensuperman 12:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please realize that categories and navboxes work hand-in-hand on Wikipedia and should not be an either/or choice. This one is interesting, although the red links should be turned black or removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This meets hardly any of the points in WP:NAVBOX. This is not a finite set, and each navbox should have an article on the topic. These articles do not refer to one another. This is not met here. Much better suited to a category. --woodensuperman 14:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've hidden the redlinks. Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn. Alternatively, we could create the list of ships lost on their maiden voyage. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn. Ducatcolge (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (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:PH town table/bottom5

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. ✗plicit 14:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2023 (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:French town map

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. ✗plicit 14:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, and apparently not substituted anywhere either (see file usage of c:File:Paris plan pointer b jms.gif and c:File:Paris plan pointer b jms.svg). SWinxy (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (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:Gazetted officers ranks and insignias of Kerala Police and Template:Non-Gazetted officers ranks and insignias of Kerala Police

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, these templates are not used for any purpose, even though they are (at least partly) sourced, and the editor/s of them repeatedly insert citation errors (which inevitably means more work getting rid of them). Creator blocked for socking but that's irrelevant. Would like to see them deleted given their lack of real purpose. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [Note: Previously withdrew a nomination for one of these - see 2 July log for details.][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:Freestyle Music Group

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No real related links in navbox. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2023 (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:2024-25 Liga Portugal 2 Positions by Round

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no article to use it on. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2023 (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:2025 ICC Champions Trophy Group A

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no article to use it on. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2023 (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:2024 National Football League (Ireland) Division 1 table

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Table was subst into 2024 National Football League (Ireland). Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2023 (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:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/Popular pages/Total

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlinked to table which hasn't been updated since 2015. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2023 (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:Wikisource author

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 {{Wikisource author}}, {{Wikisourcelang}}, and {{Wikisourcehas}} to {{Wikisource}}. I note the sizable minority that was against this merge and that recommended caution due to the complexities. I strongly urge whoever ends up implementing this merge to read this discussion carefully, and to consult with editors such as Billinghurst if there are any questions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wikisource author with Template:Wikisource.
I've been working on some requests related to this group of templates (specifically some author/lang differences) - this entire family of templates appears to be pretty much the same barring a few wording choices and where to link things. I don't really see much need to have four different templates when one (or maybe one main with a few wrappers) will do. Primefac (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems fair enough to me – Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging of {{Wikisourcelang}}, {{Wikisourcehas}}, and {{Wikisource}}, as well as {{Wikisource author}}. The separation of these largely seem to make the process of linking to Wikisource overly complicated, and the first three I mentioned should definitely be wrapped consolidated together. {{Wikisource author}} likely should as well, although due to that being less about actual text and instead about authors, if any are kept, it should be that. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging {{Wikisourcelang}}, {{Wikisourcehas}}, and {{Wikisource}} (probably {{Wikisource-multi}} as well). As for {{Wikisource author}}, making it a wrapper but keeping its current text ("Wikisource has original works by or about") would also make sense – I think that if the wording was changed to "Wikisource has original text related to this article", it would decrease click-throughs from these articles, as it's much less clear that the original texts are the author's works/works about the author. ‑‑YodinT 09:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom merge all these templates together. Catfurball (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Catfurball. Ducatcolge (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Primefac. Seems to me a new, named param (|text=?) which could take over the function of |1= from W*-has would resolve Yodin's concern about preserving wording as in W*-author, although there would still need to be wrappers to turn e.g., {{W*author|works=foo}} into the new param. Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the various distinct kinds of links are preserved, including the "single=true" option which allows the text link to indicate that the "full text of X is available". If the merge happens, it would also be nice to tweak the options to allow for the fact that sometimes Wikisource has "several editions of"; "English translations of"; or a "Portal on the subject of". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree. These two templates refer to two completely different parts of wikisource (i.e. different namespaces), that certainly have their own logic. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SUPPORT merging all. WS is a different space and utilises namespaces differently than here, so be wary in what you are doing if you are not understanding these aspects. Please do not attempt a facile merger just because they point to a Wikisource, be it English or one of the other language WS. An example, {{Wikisource-author}} points at a person in a namespace and is specifically set up to pull the wikidata information by default and it is based on a one-to-one relationship tn enWS (typically), thoguh it can be overwritten to manually point to another language wikisource with a different setup for their ns. There is not that WD linking for other WS -related templates, and unlikely to be any time soon as the relationship between a work (enWP) and an edition of a work (enWS) is as easy to be demonstrated here or at Wikidata. Also to note that for person article (enWP) we can have works about a person (main ns enWS), and works by a person (author ns enWS) and they are pointing to different places, so different functionality. So please look to understand the functionality that is in play here before thinking that they are simply mergable as they look alike. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SUPPORT for Billinghurst's above reasons. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose, given that Billinghurst is more likely to be clued in on the nuances here. I believe caution is warranted. BD2412 T 16:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Billinghurst should be given some deference here as a representative from the Wikisource side, and if subtle Wikidata links are occurring, they should be understood and fully documented first in the Template documentations. That said... I think some consolidation might be in order? The distinction between Wikisource and Wikisourcehas doesn't make tons of sense, and I'm not even sure the functionality in Wikisourcehas should be integrated into Wikisource. Just keep it clean & simple, readers don't read anything other than the highlighted link anyway. Wikisourcelang also is a "gotcha"; intuitively, I've definitely tried to just throw in a lang=el or the like in the default template only to be surprised it didn't work. If there are any Wikidata integrations looking specifically for Wikisourcelang, can they be updated to handle some tag emitted by a lang parameter? Finally, for author, I'm a bit confused by billinghurt's comment above - I see s:Author:William Shakespeare (1564-1616) and s:Author:Mark Twain, but I don't see any main namespace "works about a person" at WS at s:William Shakespeare or s:Mark Twain. Who would be good starting points if any authors had such pages on English Wikisource. But maybe I'm misinterpreting what was being said. Regardless, it does sound like Author at least has some special casing, so per above, that should be documented and any merge, at minimum, put on hold until feature parity is achieved, and not done at all if such feature parity would require too much work given we have an existing solution. SnowFire (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2023 (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:Chicken Run

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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only three articles, all well-interlinked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiCleanerMan. Ducatcolge (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2023 (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:Doc template

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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This and Template:Doc-code serve the same purpose. This one is not linked to by anywhere, and included outdated advice, like adding interwiki links to the documentation subpage. Template:doc-code is linked to by Template:Documentation and Wikipedia:Documentation as the template to substitute. I'd suggest a deletion (or maybe a hist-merge could suffice?). SWinxy (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2023 (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).
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_5