Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10

edit

Template:Semitic topics

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 relist to April 21. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This classification is outdated by many decades. See Semitic people for sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (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:ColtsFirstPick

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. Izkala (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if these and all the NFL first-round picks by team templates are excessive. There are also templates for first-round picks by draft year and separate templates for, in this case, all of the Colts picks by draft year so the same person comes up in three different templates. Categories would be different but it seems excessive that Don McCauley is in Template:1971 NFL Draft (1971 first round), Template:Colts1971DraftPicks (being on the far left, intuitively is the first pick which is generally first round) and in this template. Not every team has a template for each year of picks so I'm just starting with this one template and trying to see if there's a consensus on whether all three are appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Honestly a template for each draft year for a team seems the most obnoxious. Looking at it as a reader I can't imagine very many people would even care about which Colts were drafted in 1971, let alone use the template. Lizard (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find these to be useful. Template:Colts1971DraftPicks and similar ones I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't really use, but the first round ones by team should stay.--Yankees10 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yankees10. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of a situation in which someone would want to navigate to another first round draft pick only because they were a first round draft pick, and even if some obscure situations exist, they're not frequent enough to justify the navbox cruft. ~ RobTalk 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. No good reason to have this cluttering things up. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This TFD nomination is flawed. There needed to be a discussion at WP:NFL first about whether these templates should exist or not. Not enough users from the project are voting and i'm guessing some don't even realize this is here. Randomly nominating just the Colts one makes no sense. If this is deleted it will be the only team of 32 not to have this type of template.--Yankees10 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2016 (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:Delete page

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. Izkala (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (in Ladino) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has had a bit of confusion as to what's being proposed. To help reach consensus, let's restrict things to the actual proposal here. The question is whether to add the functionality to specify a deletion rationale into {{la}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can the adding a "[delete]" link and parameter "|deletelink=yes" also be added to the other page link templates? (ie. {{lt}} , {{lc}} , etc) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's technically possible, but let's work on consensus for this single template before we start a broader conversation about all of them. Looking at all the templates at once will just muddy the waters. ~ RobTalk 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (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:Honda international timeline

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 merge {{Honda international timeline}} into {{Modern Honda vehicles}}, as there is a valid reason and no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (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:Current events/revisedlayout

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. ~ RobTalk 16:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (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:Scleroprotein disease

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. ~ RobTalk 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.

I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This template wasn't marked as under discussion for deletion, so I've relisted and placed the appropriate notifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 13:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Navbox clutter generally refers to situations large number of navboxes are placed on the same page (for an extreme example, see Michael Jordon#External links which transcludes 48 navboxes). In looking through the target articles in the {{Scleroprotein disease}} navbox, most articles have two navboxes which IMHO is not excessive. The larger a navbox becomes, the harder it becomes to use for navigation. This particular navbox, particularly the vertical height is becoming large, but IMHO, still manageable. Perhaps the layout could be improved to make more efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:41, 10 April 2016 (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:ESIScore

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 keep. Izkala (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If it were based on actually peer-reviewed work, we could include it, but it is solely based on self-published material. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lol WHAT? ESI is original research? Why don't we delete Earth Similarity Index as well then? Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me any paper on an exoplanet discovery that quotes this index. jps (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESI is Original Reasearch? Is this an April fools joke? QuentinQuade (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Checkuser note: Discussion reopened due to vote fraud. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete. ESI appears to have negligible use or acceptance beyond the individual or group that published it. Most, possibly all, articles using this template are about to be deleted. The creator of the template has been spamming and coat racking ESI across a multitude of articles, and using abusive sock multi-voting to keep & promote it. If we discard the abusive sockmaster vote above, this is currently unanimous for delete. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote: I still want this gone, but it's better to resolve this after the ESI RFC and some resolution for the article no-consensus. Alsee (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (changed vote; see below for explanation).Delete. Unless ESI becomes widely used in refereed literature, it shouldn't be the basis of a template. I concur with the nominator and with Alsee's remark about the limited usage of ESI. Astro4686 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Astro4686: @Alsee: There is nothing speculative about this template, it does not calculate the ESI at all. All this template does is apply colours ranging from red to green for number between 0 to 1. You could call this Template:NumColourizer and that would be more accurate representation of what this template does. Did you even look at the code? Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for changed vote. Tom.Reding's comment has convinced me that we should hold off on deleting this template -- for now. Although the current set of AfD discussions has convinced me that it is premature to use ESI widely on WP, deleting this template would not prevent ESI values from being listed on a page. It seems to me that the best solution is to wait for a community consensus to be reached about the use of ESI in articles other than Earth Similarity Index itself. I note that there is an open RfC on the appropriateness of using ESI on WP. Let's see what emerges from that discussion. If the community reaches a consensus against the widespread use of ESI, then ESI values can be removed from the appropriate articles, at which point it might be more appropriate to delete this template. In short, deleting this template would not resolve the fundamental issue: the appropriateness of the widespread use of ESI on WP. Astro4686 (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changed from Keep to Strong Keep because of its use on List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI, which has remained after 2 AfD noms.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:11, 15 April 2016 (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:HabPlanetScore

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. Izkala (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This particular template is based on original research. No peer-reviewed "habitability scores" are published for planets by Kepler, NASA, etc. jps (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as TfD above. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Btw Kepler is a misson by NASA their not seperate entities. An exoplanet is an exoplanet even if it was discovered by NASA other properties can be discovered by other space orginizations too. The reason why other orginizations such as universities publish ESI scores instead of the original publisher like the NASA/Kepler mission is because its not Kepler's job to calculate the ESI. Instead we can take the values of the planet which is Kepler's job (to find exoplanetary data) and plug that data into an equation to get the ESI. The ESI is in Universe Sandbox^2 and SpaceEngine and countless other astronomy software and was not invented on Wikipedia for funzies. I am going to assume that this is just an April fools joke because.... QuentinQuade (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ESI is an artificial construct and is not in WP:MAINSTREAM academic use. jps (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every article using this has majority delete votes on it (once the sock multivoting is discarded). It's being used to present speculative / fringe data in an Original Research manner. Wildly speculative "habitability" of exoplanets is being promoted in a grossly unencyclopedic manner. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Delete. Per nom. A template about planetary habitability should be based on work from refereed papers in mainstream journals. This template is just too speculative. Astro4686 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for changed vote. I originally voted to delete because I think that color-coding these values implies an unrealistic level of confidence as to what constitutes a habitable object; a reader without a background in astronomy might read too much into the color-coding. However, since List of potentially habitable moons withstood its AfD nomination (result: no consensus), I think that we should instead hold a wide-ranging discussion on that article's talk page to figure out how to improve it. Perhaps one of the outcomes of that discussion will be to delete this template, but in the meantime, I wouldn't want a deleted template to complicate the process of revising the article. Moreover, given the level of disagreement on the various AfDs and TfDs, I think that it makes sense to hold one centralized discussion about the relevant issues. Astro4686 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the deletes is that this template shouldn't be used anywhere in the encyclopedia. Google gives me 39 hits for "Habitable Zone Composition" which consist of the single original source, a mass of hits that are explicitly or blatantly copied from Wikipedia, and a couple of forums and other user-generated sites that are highly likely derived from Wikipedia. It is the original/fringe/speculative view of that single source. Even if the Moon article is kept, this unencyclopedic content needs to go. Alsee (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2016 (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/2016_April_10&oldid=1074850224"