Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 4 August 6 >

August 5

edit

Template:Our Last Night

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 relisted on 2019 August 13. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 13 August 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:Lost Ocean

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. Reasonable arguments, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's navigational template consists of three links: the band's article, an album article and an EP redirected back to the band's article. The two articles already connect to each other, there are not enough links to justify having a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 23:46, 5 August 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:Infobox India district

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 with {{infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

SUMMARY: Undo forking of template by country+type [India+district]. Re-create unity within India and create unity in the zone Latin America - Africa [outside CV] - Eastern Europe - Asia [outside RU, IL, JP] - Oceania [outside AU, NZ]. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Situation worldwide
 
  • green : Infobox settlement (only);
  • turquoise: 1 Infobox settlement wrapper [India has exactly one];
  • blue : 1+ Infobox settlement wrappers;
  • red : at least one other infobox.

India is not marked green because for some of the districts a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}} is used.

Places in India
Percentage non-districts vs. districts
2019-07-29
Infobox usage on articles about places in India


Places in India
Percentage non-districts vs. districts
potential
Infobox usage on articles about places in India


  • Assume all non-districts [regions, states, divisions, subdistricts, villages, blocks etc] use infobox settlement
  • Assume all disctricts use infobox district
Former wrappers with few transclusions
Wrappers with <2500 transclusions usually deleted
Blue items in the list are redirects
Template Transclusion
count
{{Infobox Austrian district}} 88
{{Infobox Bangladesh district}} 63
{{Infobox Belgium settlement}} 31
{{Infobox Bulgarian province}} 30
{{Infobox Canton}} 27
{{Infobox Chaco}} 25
{{Infobox Chilean region}} 16
{{Infobox County Romania}} 19
{{Infobox District PT}} 17
{{Infobox District Slovakia}} 80
{{Infobox Egyptian Governorate}} 29
{{Infobox England region}} 11
{{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} 82
{{Infobox French region}} 32
{{Infobox fylke}} 20
{{Infobox Fylkeskommune}} 19
{{Infobox German Regierungsbezirk}} 33
{{Infobox German state}} 23
{{Infobox Greek prefecture}} 13
{{Infobox Helsinki subdivision}} 90
{{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} 306
{{Infobox Kelurahan}} 1
{{Infobox Kenya county}} 3
{{Infobox Korean settlement}} 448
{{Infobox Latvian district}} 28
{{Infobox Latvian municipalities}} 114
{{Infobox London Borough}} 34
{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}} 119
{{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}} 20
{{Infobox Maldives}} 234
{{Infobox Maldives atoll}} 30
{{Infobox Municipality BR}} 1,036
{{Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR}} 95
{{Infobox Nepal district}} 75
{{Infobox Omaha Neighborhood}} 1
{{Infobox Palestine municipality}} 434
{{Infobox Partido Argentina}} 214
{{Infobox Peru region}} 26
{{Infobox Philippine region}} 18
{{Infobox Prefecture Japan}} 55
{{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} 29
{{Infobox Province Peru}} 191
{{Infobox Province Spain}} 38
{{Infobox Province TR}} 81
{{Infobox region of Italy}} 21
{{Infobox Russian city district}} 1
{{Infobox Russian governorate}} 40
{{Infobox Scotland council area}} 35
{{Infobox Scotland county}} 23
{{Infobox Singapore neighbourhood}} 119
{{Infobox South African municipality}} 296
{{Infobox South African town}} 2,114
{{Infobox St. Louis neighborhood}} 79
{{Infobox Town AT}} 2,411
{{Infobox townlands}} 87
{{Infobox UAE community}} 83
{{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} 26
{{Infobox Ukrainian raion}} 400
{{Infobox Uruguayan Department}} 19
{{Infobox Venezuelan municipality}} 216
{{Infobox Venezuelan state}} 23
{{Infobox Vienna District}} 27
  1. Procedural:
    1. India did use (for any kind of entity?) Template:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction since at least 2006, for which in 2011 in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6#Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction it was decided to replace and delete it. Example: 2012 conversion from Infobox Indian Jurisdiction to Infobox settlement
    2. Fork: Infobox India district (named "India Districts") was created in 2009 [1] - I did not find any discussion about using it.
    3. Some users replaced Infobox Indian Jurisdiction with "India Districts", e.g. 2010-10-.. in Bihar: Vaishali Kaimur, Bhojpur, Banka, Nadia
  2. Situation elsewhere:
    1. No other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper used in South Asia.
    2. Except for Israel, Russia and Japan, all of Asia is free of such wrappers
    3. Even China as the only other country having a population above 1 billion, uses {{Infobox settlement}} directly for all types of entities
  3. Situtation in India:
    1. Except for districts all of India uses {{Infobox settlement}} directly
      1. Regions of India : 6
      2. States of India : 29
      3. Territories of India : 7
      4. Divisions of India : ~98
      5. Inconsistent Districts of India : ~750 districts, but the 2009 created fork template was never transcluded on all articles that had an infobox (proof)
      6. Subdistricts of India (tehsils, etc.) : ~5450
      7. Towns of India : ?
      8. Villages of India : 100 000 - 1 000 000?
  4. Template code and transclusion code:
    1. The current template inserts data into wrong fields, e.g. non-humans into "leader"
    2. Most of the transclusions in the articles start "{{India Districts" which is non-standard for infoboxes, despite that it has been renamed 13 October 2013‎ by User:Underlying lk (thank you!) - so clean-up is needed anyway
    3. Several of the transclusions are formatted in a way that makes the text hard to read [in several instances the whole infobox was in one(!) line], substitution will bring a clean formatting

78.55.29.138 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, and for the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per nom = Replace and delete, Andy Mabbett? -- 77.13.89.182 (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. There appears to have been some canvassing (see [3]). – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural comment. There appears to have been some violation of WP:AGF. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification states: On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. In the notification to Pigsonthewing the reason was explicitly stated You were the second contributor - the creator did not edit since 2018 - to a template that is now discussed at [...]. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My long-standing and regular contribution to discussions of infoboxes - especially place-related infoboxes - is a matter of record. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. And so is your strong opinion for the mergers of infoboxes. Surely you must be able to see why it might appear suspicious that among the dozen or so contributors to the template the OP has chosen only you. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF violation - "it might appear suspicious [...] dozen or so contributors to the template" - Creator had 26 edits, Andy 12, another editor 10, two others 5 each, all others less. WP:CANVASS prohibits 1) "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" - so I only notified four. 2) "Campaigning" - so I made all my messages neutral. 3) "Votestacking" - so I selected people not one the basis of prior votes in TfD. 4) "Stealth canvassing" - so I publicly posted on the English Wikipedia user talk pages. 77.13.89.182 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom and Andy. Good catch! Restore uniform solution for all of India, use only one template for the whole country, a fork just for districts is bad. Nearby Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Maldives, ASEAN, China, use only one template, India should join them. Consensus 2011 (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6#Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction), had in the proposal text: no reason why we need a separate infobox for India [...] What I propose is a full convert to [...] a wrapper of infobox settlement for now until at a later date they can be fully replaced with infobox settlement and was closed as "Delete". The full replacement has been made and the intermediary wrapper deleted. The fork which is discussed here, was maybe so obscure that participants in the discussion forgot to mention it. JelgavaLV (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom, Andy and Consensus 2011. Out of process fork, restore uniform solution for India by implementing the result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6#Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient unique features to be kept. We have the usual government aliases but also demographics data that is a lot more relevant for India then most other places. What fields are in the infobox matters since it changes editor behaviour, otherwise we wouldn't have 80% (based on me looking at 10 random pages using the infobox) of Indian districts having literacy rate and sex ratio information. This is useful information that help readers understand the districts better and should not be considered irrelevant because you can use blank fields in info box settlement to get the same effect. --Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, Sufficient unique features to be kept - Which? And what is "Sufficient unique"? I understand "unique" but don't know what the meaning is, if that word is combined with "sufficient". Maybe Swedish-English? TerraCyprus (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what do you mean by What fields are in the infobox matters since it changes editor behaviour - do you have any statistics on these? How many of the 400000 direct usages of the proposed replacement template did you use as basis for your claim? TerraCyprus (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JelgavaLV, Pigsonthewing, and Gonnym: do you understand the reasoning by Trialpears? Why should literacy rate and sex ratio not be relevant or less relevant for articles that are about other Indian entities (not district) or about entities not Indian at all, e.g. Nepalese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi to begin with? TerraCyprus (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TerraCyprus, The census doesn't provide that information for subdivisions below regions making it essentially unknown. My worries with adding it to infobox settlement would be people adding that information to areas which have 99%+ litteracy rates. It's just unnecessary clutter in that case. I would support adding it to subdivisions of other countries where this data can be useful for understanding the situation in these places, such as the ones you listed. I also believe that most of the previous deletions, such as Bangladesh and Nepal districts , were unnecessary, but that is difficult to judge without knowing what features the deleted templates actually had. --Trialpears (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears The census doesn't provide that information for subdivisions below regions districts are "below regions" and districts is what this template is about. I also don't know why you argue "below" and not above. Re 99% - if you want to not display literacy if a district has 99% then this feature doesn't currently exist in the discussed template either. Please provide evidence for any claim regarding what the Indian census provides and explain why 99% is "just unnecessary clutter". TerraCyprus (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per Andy and the 2011 consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer(s) All TfD from August 4 and August 6 are closed. From August 5 all TfD but this one are closed. Before relist it was 3:2 in support, after relist came just one "vote", which was a further support, bringing the pure counting to 4:2. The supporters are in line with the 2011 consensus and recent consensuses on dozens of other wrappers with few transclusions. One opposer drops out of the discussion when asked for evidence for his claims, specifically regarding census information ("census doesn't"). The other wants to store information in templates, claiming it would be easier and better tracked than in Wikidata, the central project of the Wikimedia foundation for structured data for 300+ other WMF projects. Facts regarding template usage: In India 30000+ articles about states, regions, tehsils, blocks, villages even many districts use {{Infobox settlement}} without a wrapper. Only some districts use the fork template. 77.13.89.182 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JJMC89 and Primefac: two in TfD backlog, this with 4:2 and the evidence provided is easy? 77.11.2.44 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop pinging us when your nominations get to the "ready to close" stage - there is zero rush and we will get to the close when we get to it. Getting pinged to close something that was already going to be closed makes one not want to close it right now. As it is, I'm on holiday and might not get a chance to do anything about this for a while. Primefac (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per above and other recent TfDs. This method of template operation is not suitable and out of the options currently available, the better option is to merge all to a parent template and then work from there to find better solutions (if wanted and needed). --Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 17 August 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:Oncological symptoms and signs

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. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not provide any useful navigational value. Apart from structures that have been named after someone there is no overall useful linking criteria. Additionally, many structures are named after people and the use of the names changes over time. This navbox is not useful and contributes to navbox clutter.

The contents should be either made into a list-type article (potentially "eponymous medical signs") or put into a category. Thoughts?

Talk page originally tagged by User:Tom (LT). Tagging template page as what was probably intended. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon thanks for this, I really appreciate the help in moving it rather than just pointing out my error and leaving it there :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change scope Drop the eponymous and it will be a fine navbox. --Trialpears (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 5 August 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:Arsames

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. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN. Only one navigable link, apart from the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 5 August 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:2019 France Women's T20I Quadrangular Series Table

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. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the template into the 2019 France Women's T20I Quadrangular Series article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created this based on the format of many other cricket articles, to be consistent, but I agree this series is very small and the table is unlikely to be used elsewhere so merging it into the article is fine. Bs1jac (talk) 07:44, 5 August 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:Manichitrathazhu character map

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. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comments from the previous TfDs remain unchanged, that templates like this shouldn't exist, and its purpose has already been served by Template:Films inspired by Manichitrathazhu. Moreover, this template emphasises characters over the films, which is not the way to go. The creator's earlier reasoning, "This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries" was shrugged off by User:Izno who said, "That can also be gotten by a researcher researching as appropriate, and doesn't need a dedicated convenience template for a hypothetical use case." But the template still wasn't deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:17, 5 August 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_August_5&oldid=911275749"