Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22[edit]

Module:OldEnglishToIPA[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 no consensus. Seems like there's room for improvement on this module and possibly a return to use in the original template. No prejudice against a renomination if it sits unused and/or unedited after a few months. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module, completely orphaned, hardcoded version of Template:MultiReplace anyway. * Pppery * has returned 20:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It serves a useful purpose, and it could be really nifty to use its functionality in {{IPA-ang}} or other higher-level templates. I don't see how it can be compared to the module used by Template:MultiReplace: that is a generic string function module, this is a module that transcribes between Old English spelling and IPA. – Uanfala (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep, per Unafala, but it would need to actually be used for that (or some other) purpose; we should not keep a template around for another decade just on the theory that it could be used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nardog: Why did you remove use of the module from the template? * Pppery * has returned 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery: Because it wasn't used and didn't work. If it does, {{#invoke:OldEnglishToIPA|convert|Ænglisc}} should return "ˈæŋliʃ", {{#invoke:OldEnglishToIPA|convert|Beowulf}} should return "ˈbeːo̯wulf", and so on. But they return "Ænɣɫisk" and "Beowuɫv".
    First of all, is Old English pronunciation completely predictable from spelling, even stress? Old English#Orthography only says it was "reasonably regular", and Old English Latin alphabet says "it had no standard orthography". Wiktionary has Lua-based templates that automatically convert spelling to IPA for languages whose orthography is phonemic such as Spanish, Italian, Polish, Finnish, and Japanese, but it doesn't have one for Old English. And even if such a template for Old English was feasible, I don't think it should be achieved through the existing template that accepts direct input. Perhaps such a template should—again, if feasible—replace Template:IPAc-ang, which is scarcely used (and I don't know if the transcriptions produced by IPAc-ang are accurate; they lack stress for one thing, which makes me doubt it). Nardog (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish and Uanfala: Nardog has pointed out here that the module doesn't produce accurate transcriptions. Do you still feel that the module should be kept? * Pppery * has returned 22:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know really. Looking at the Beowulf example above: the module gives [ł], which is precisely what Old English phonology#Velarization would lead me to expect. It gets the [f] wrong though: and that appears to be down to the fact that the module seems to detect beginnings and ends of words by the presence of spaces: that's clearly wrong, and it can be solved by tweaking the Lua "patterns" to use the beginning and end of string characters (^ and $). Now, I don't know enough about Old English spelling to tell whether it is amenable to straightforward mapping into pronunciation. If it is, then a module can in principle be expected to work reasonably well. In that case, we should keep this module as a starting point, to be available for interested users to improve and utilise as and when they see the need to. – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to ping, and reading the above: I'll stick with "provisional keep" for now, given that this is still being explored. There's no deadline, and if this can be tweaked to perform properly, we have something useful (and possibly portable to Wiktionary, etc.), but if not then it's broken, not fixable, and should be deleted after all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 29 April 2019 (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).

Seasonal rugby squad navboxes[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is navbox overkill. If a player had one of these navboxes for every season of their career, it would be an absolute mess at the bottom of their article. Squad navboxes should be for international tournaments like the Rugby World Cup and current international and club squads. – PeeJay 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; only the current season should have a navbox or this would really be an overkill. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; serious overkill. noq (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found some more of these that should probably be deleted, but instead of adding them to this nomination, I will use whatever consensus we come to here to inform whether or not I nominate them for deletion as well. – PeeJay 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Also Comment I think individual season ones are fine for title winning years (where there is an individual season article) for Premiership, Pro14, Top14, Champions Cup and Super Rugby, these are by default limited in number and worth recording.Skeene88 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree about title-winning ones. We can have articles such as 2018 Crusaders season for that exact reason (I'm actually surprised that article doesn't already exist!) – PeeJay 11:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same rationale as the for the excessively detailed TV sub-series junk nominated April 23: we cannot have constant WP:TEMPLATEFORKs like this. Just a maintenance nightmare, a breeding ground for WP:CONLEVEL policy failures, and a confusing mess for readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:54, 23 April 2019 (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:MUNI icon strip[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Useddenim (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused and as unlikely to ever be used in a way that doesn't transgress MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the reasons I originally created it were reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2019 (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:New Regime (American band)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This band's navigational template consists of two articles: the band's and one of its members' articles. These two articles already link to each other, so this navigational template has too few links, is unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; two articles do not need a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the WP:NAVBOX guideline doesn't establish a hard limit, there's long-standing general consensus to not have navboxes for such a tiny number of articles. Hatnotes and "See also" and (better yet) just in-context linking in the article body are much more sensible. Call it a WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY matter: we don't need something complicated when something simple will do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 23 April 2019 (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).

Unused article assessment class 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. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these templates are unused. I will go into more detail below why they are unlikely to be used, but I will start by noting none of them are recognized on the tables on Template:Grading scheme.

{{AN-Class}} is the only place on Wikipedia that references an assessment class called "AN class"; see the search results for "AN-Class" (mainspace and filespace excluded because they're not discussion namespaces and they're full of unrelated content like AN class). Yes, I do know the hyphens between words in quotation marks make no difference in search results and could be replaced by spaces.

{{GAN-Class}} and {{FAC-Class}} are unlikely to be used because WP:GAN and WP:FAC are nominations to be assessed, not assessments of quality themselves simply by merit of being nominated.

{{FT-class}} has no use case because Featured topics are not applied to individual articles, but a designation given to collection of articles. Assessment classes are only relevant for individual articles. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{GAN-Class}} is used in cases such as User:Iazyges/Kriegsmarine Destroyers when creating worklists. It tends to only be used temporarily while the article is awaiting review, hence why it isn't used as much as others. I still think it's useful. No thoughts on the others. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your same argument would also apply to {{FAC-Class}}. I did forgot about the Iazyges subpage transclusion, though I'll note the one transclusion currently there is outdated. eπi (talk | contribs) 02:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: I have removed {{GAN-Class}} and {{FAC-Class}} from the nomination based on you pointing out how they can be useful in other contexts I didn't consider. eπi (talk | contribs) 03:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AN, FT, per nom. Keep GAN, FAC, per Czar and per E to the Pi times i.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 23 April 2019 (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:GAN link/core[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was deprecated in 2016 by Mr. Stradivarius in Special:Diff/755078860, and is no longer used or needed. DannyS712 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unused templates that have been replaced by a module do not need to be retained. eπi (talk | contribs) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as superseded by a more useful module.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 23 April 2019 (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/2019_April_22&oldid=895090909"