Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Template:Masta Wu[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. North America1000 18:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Masta Wu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the links in this navbox quickly became redirects, and there is only one link left. Random86 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, let's wait unless/until the See Also section of the page grows enough to warrant a template. CrowCaw 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not enough to navigate. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale: we don't do one-link navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No purpose to a template that doesn't actually navigate anyplace useful. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely pointless, doesn't go anywhere useful, and created by a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

American football game infoboxes[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Bowl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (15 transclusions)
Template:Infobox UFLchamp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (3 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Super Bowl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (59 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Pro Bowl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (74 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NFL championship game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (37 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NFL single game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (53 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Belgian Bowl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (33 transclusions)
Template:Infobox ArenaFootballSingleGameHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (6 transclusions)
Template:Infobox ArenaBowl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (28 transclusions)
Template:Infobox AFLChamp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (10 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox AFLChamp with Template:Infobox ArenaBowl.
A swathe of largely-duplicative American football game infoboxes, which could all be handled by a single, expandable infobox, very much like I've done with {{Infobox soccer draft}}. The present situation is ummanageable. Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Alakzi: 1. I didn't look at the others, but you broke {{Infobox college football single game mini header}} when you added the tfd template. Tables need to start on a new line, so if the first thing in the template is a table, you need a carriage return after you add the tfd template. The table was clearly broken in your revision. This broke every use of the template. Please make sure that nothing else is broken. 2. I don't hugely care as long as (a) we don't lose functionality and (b) it's not painfully difficult to use the new one. Consolidating templates for making them more maintainable is definitely a good thing in general ... the new template just needs to be able to handle the different cases. Consider, for example, that college football has very different overtime rules than NFL football. In college football, you might have seven overtime periods (that is currently the record) whereas in the NFL, unless it is the playoffs, the game ends in a tie if you reach the end of the one (and only) overtime period without a score. (In the playoffs, you will play additional periods.) I'm not sure that there is anything to !vote on since no template currently exists that can handle all of the cases handled by these individual templates. Once such a template exists, please let me know. --B (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't look at the others ... This is an issue with Twinkle, and I've fixed all the other ones. I'm not sure that there is anything to !vote ... We're !voting on the intent to create such a template to accommodate all use cases. I've personally never witnessed a merge nomination where the merge was performed beforehand, and I'm definitely not going to spend the remainder of the day merging all fourteen of these, only to be told that there's no consensus. Alakzi (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but it's not really a merge in the same sense that an article merge is a merge. In this case, you're creating a new template to duplicate the functionality of a bunch of other templates. While I agree that there's no problem with the idea, I reserve the right to disagree if the eventual new template breaks existing functionality in some way. --B (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Functionality won't be lost, but their design will be unified; I make no promise to keep the super-tiny text in {{Infobox college football single game mini header}}, for example. Alakzi (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that's kinda the point of that template - it's to have a smaller infobox when you have one article about multiple games so that if it's a stub, you don't have a bunch of templates running into each other. --B (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reducing the cell spacing or line-height would be more effective and make it more readable. Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe you could merge it in theory, but some of them have some complex or unique properties, like {{Infobox Pro Bowl}}, which has a switch statement that automatically modifies the header depending on the year. Or {{Infobox Super Bowl}} which has several specific hardcoded headers, labels and links to various articles in Category:Super Bowl. You are probably better off modifying all of these so there is one general infobox meta-template and then a bunch of wrappers. Otherwise you may have yet another template sitting in the holding cell for several months. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at the source code of {{Infobox soccer draft}} and {{Infobox soccer draft/draft}} to get an idea of how the title and other league-specific labels could be handled. I've converted {{Infobox Pro Bowl}} to use {{Infobox}} to serve as a primer. Alakzi (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually that does not really address my comment about needing to have one meta-template and a bunch of auxiliary templates. Converting each one to {tl|Infobox}} is one thing. Merging all the unique properties to one single infobox template is another. As User:B alluded to above, college American football has different rules than professional American football, so, among others, the box score table in the infobox is more expanded. And because {{Infobox college football single game}} is primarily used for college football articles, it also has several unique fields and labels that are not found in the infoboxes for professional football. Likewise, {{Infobox Pro Bowl}}, {{Infobox Super Bowl}} and the other infoboxes used for professional football have labels and fields that are unique to professional football, and not applicable to college football. Unless you intend to have one single template with a bunch of switch and other parser functions, you are going to have, as I said, one meta-template and a bunch of auxiliary templates (either sub-templates like {{Infobox soccer draft/draft}} or wrappers). Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appeared to have been concerned about code complexity, which is why I gave {{Infobox soccer draft}} as an example. We've not got to merge every single one of them into a master template; the college ones, for example, we can leave alone. The remaining ones seem to be fairly redundant, save for a few custom labels. Any which diverge to such a degree that we're not gonna be able to manage without edge cases, we can skip. Alakzi (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So are you going to remove the college ones in the list of proposed templates above? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Given that Alakzi has given a reasonable explanation, I will have to support such a merge. I have to take this position because it seems {{Infobox Super Bowl}} was created first, and then the other ones were apparently created as either forks or substantial copies without sufficient attribution. Without such sufficient attribution, it is more difficult to trace these infoboxes back to the original editor who started Infobox Super Bowl in the first place: yours truly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them the way they are. Making 8 template into a single template will make them difficult to use. SBLV2021 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, now that the college ones have been removed from the discussion, merging these should be a "no brainer". Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

More railway station services 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bedminster railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Parson Street railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yatton railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Montpelier railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Clifton Down railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stapleton Road railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Filton Abbey Wood railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sea Mills railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use templates which can be merged with the transcluding articles. (See also this discussion on similar templates.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:07, 11 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Countdown-ymd[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep for non-mainspace use. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countdown-ymd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. (Currently it is only used in New Horizons#Current status.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument without an argument. Can you give a substantive WP policy that supports deletion of this template, which is used correctly in a 6,600-word article with 137 references? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a countdown of the number of seconds to an event lacks Wikipedia:Notability. I think that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information, not something that is updated every second. It is appropriate for this article to give the date and time of the closest approach to Pluto, but the second-by-second countdown adds nothing to the article. Do we need a countdown to the number of seconds to the year 2016? Do we need a countdown on the number of seconds to the 2017 US Presidential inauguration? I don't think so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require every fact in every article to be "notable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also from WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." A person would not expect a second-by-second countdown to an event in an encyclopedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event is very notable and of great scientific value. Displaying the countdown enriches the article, even if it displays offensive seconds. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event is very notable - the countdown clock is not. It should just give the date and time of the closest approach. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the editors says "After July 14, the template will show 'Event time has passed.' " What is the point in that? Why not say that for everything that has already happened? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Event time has passed' is the default output. Editors may set |expired= to almost anything. Setting |expired=none will cause the template do display nothing after the countdown has expired.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this template should be used on any article page. It lowers the tone of the article. It could be useful for project pages for start times of events or other things (software updates?). Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{countdown-ymd}} in New Horizons#Current status replaced {{countdown}} which renders a countdown in years, weeks, days, ... Weeks, beyond a fortnight or so, become meaningless to most people. There may be a bigger question here. If the countdown is inappropriate content, then is it not true that all of the other data in §Current status also inappropriate? This is probably not the correct venue to decide that question but if Editor Bubba73's belief that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information then almost nothing should be retained at New Horizons §Current status.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the article's talk page, I objected to the data in the "current status". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Bubba73: You say "I think that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information". That would prevent us from showing the age of a person based on the current date, as {{Age in years}} and {{Birth date and age}} (400,000 transclusions) do. For consistency, you should nominate those for deletion. See also Wikipedia is not paper. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is different. It isn't given to the second and it isn't until a future event. It doesn't give the number of seconds until their next birthday. Give the date and time of the closest approach to Pluto, but get rid of the countdown clock. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Deletion would seem to be a bit heavy-handed, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing being used outside main space. But I agree with others above that this doesn't seem appropriate for use in articles, where the date and (if necessary) time of a future event should be sufficient. I think we should also include the aforementioned {{Countdown}} in this discussion (removed from 2014 Sukma Games which is now past) and the infobox-style {{Day Countdown}} (used in 2016 Sukma Games). PC78 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree that a counter like this is not very suitable for an encyclopedia, I think it's quite useful given the proximity of the flyby. 2 more months and it's gone, so no harm in keeping it for a little longer. Húsönd 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need to nip this thing in the bud before it shows up in other articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least disallow in mainspace (if anyone wants it for their user page or a project page or something) per nom. This is appropriate content for a fan site, not for an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be very useful in project or template space. Agree that it has no place in the main namespace. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bubba73 has some arguments against employing the template in articles. I do not quite agree with the conclusion (although I might do, if there was a more active Wikinews project, and more cross-references with that project). Parts of the arguments I never would agree with, I think: It is true that the template would give bad effects for wikipedia, if it were over-used in almost each and every article, but this is rather beside the point; such over-use would be negative for any template, and the potential risk for abuse is not a reason for deleting any one of them. However, even if the validity of the Bubba73 arguments were granted, they would be a reason to deprecate in the article namespace, not to delete the template.
Actually, I think that you should start by criticising the use of this template at the New Horizons article itself, Bubba73, rather than proposing a template deletion. JoergenB (talk)
I did start by discussing it on that article's talk page. Then I asked at the Village Pump, then here. Is there a way to keep it, but not allow it to be used in mainspace articles? (That seems to be the consensus.) BTW, someone else recently deleted it from that article, saying that it doesn't belong there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise; you indeed first did bring this up on the New Horizons talk page (which I ought to have remembered). JoergenB (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've piqued my curiosity: how is it that {{countdown-ymd}} won't work well for editors who are not logged in?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
pages are cached for editors who aren't logged in, hence the countdown won't update as frequently. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not true that pages are cached for everyone, regardless of logged-in status? Logged-in editors aren't served a freshly rendered page just because they are logged in; we get the same view as everyone. This is why changes in templates that effect a page's display require a null edit of the page to see the template's changes; why testcases pages have a refresh link; why {{countdown-ymd}} has a refresh link. Right? Am I missing something?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
things are always changing but the last I recall seeing was described in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-08/Technology report. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the page that you reference it says that logged-in users outside of the US suffer a delay because their requests are routed to Virginia for service. If you look at the page source of a page you view while logged in, you will see that it contains refererence to you. If you view the same page while you are not logged in, no mention of you. I think that the stuff about you is added as the page is served to you. I didn't read anything in your reference to suggest that {{countdown-ymd}} works differently for not-logged-in readers/editors than it does for logged-in editors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is obviously useful outside of article space. There are probably hundreds of templates that are used exclusively out of the mainspace. Epic Genius (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11&oldid=1144234915"