Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22

edit

2013–14 Egyptian Premier League tables

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for the note Hhkohh. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one pages. Just call directly from that page. No reason for a template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:26, 23 February 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:Asbox/sandbox/no-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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, can't figure out how to eliminate the error(s), no prejudice against recreation if the template is needed in the future DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 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:Marshall Islands-sport-stub

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded template; only used for 1 page (Marshall Islands National Olympic Committee) which already has {{Olympic-org-stub}}. DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 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).

Module:FileData

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) 00:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable per its own documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:33, 22 February 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 U.S. state

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 March 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 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 Finnish municipality

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 April 6. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:00, 6 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).

Metadata population AT 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & delete. This is not a valid way to store data. The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData. Not maintained in this sort of template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 22 February 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:Metadata Population BE

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 March 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 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:If affirmed

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 March 1. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 1 March 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:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization

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 March 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 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:Trillium Line route diagram detailed

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 March 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 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).

2018 Singapore NFL Div tables

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute, then delete. Each has a single transclusion. Bsherr (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:21, 22 February 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 playwright

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 to Template:Infobox playwright. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox playwright into Template:Infobox writer.

Playwrights are, by definition, writers; many write things other than plays. We seem to have more articiles on playwrights that already use {{Infobox writer}} than use {{Infobox playwright}}.

The writer template has parameters that are not in the playwright template; but these are mostly of generic biographical type (for example, |honorific_suffix=; |parents=; |years_active=) and apply equally to playwrights.

The few parameters unique to the playwright box are either widely deprecated (|influenced=; |influences=) or can be included in the writer template - there being just five of the latter:

  • |collaborator=
  • |debut_works= [sic]
  • |magnum_opus=
  • |memorials=
  • |ploys= (labelled "Dramatic devices")

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep don't see how this proposal makes editing experience easier, it's clear the template is still in use, has unique parameters to better describe playwrights, and no convincing rationale for merging. I don't find the fact that some playwrights use writer a convincing reason for merging. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, seems like a duplication. Renata (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • meta comment a link to this discussion appeared at the top of the article I was reading, drawing attention to itself by disrupting the display of the infobox. The discussion has no effect on the page, as a page merge might, so why is it being advertised in i-dont-know-how-many articles in main space? cygnis insignis 10:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite agree with the previous comment, that I really don't understand why a link to this discussion appears on all pages that use the infobox writer. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • meta response To editors Cygnis insignis and Dick Bos: : The purpose is to get more editors to discuss this proposal, since without such a notice traffic to template-related discussions is at a level far below that to article-related discussions, while at the same time keeping the notice's visual footprint minimized so as to not overwhelm the rest of the page. I think it's a balanced approach. —Geekdiva (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't see the need for unique templates for sub-types of writers - comic, novel, play, television, film. Even more so, when these writers can and do write for several different mediums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs)
  • Merge. If this weren't being used for any playwrights, I can imagine opposing on the grounds that people writing articles about playwrights have found it more useful, but since it's already being heavily used, any not-useful-for-playwrights argument is obviously invalid. Note that some playwrights don't have either infobox, e.g. William Shakespeare uses only {{Infobox person}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not unique enough or used enough to warrant a separate template. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Points made by PigsOTW are pertinent in all respects. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I have seen some people working on several media. Giving a individual template to a occupation is not reflecting the fact. -Mariogoods (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playwrights are not writers by definition. Completely different specializations, taught at different universities. Most writers are unable to professionally write plays/screenplays without at least additional guidance/education and vice versa. The fact that SOME people are known for successfully combining both skills doesn't tell anything. Merging them means merging two different professions. And in most cases the infobox is defined by the person's contribution to this or that field. Anton Chekhov is clearly a writer, while Martin McDonagh is clearly a playwright. AveTory (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Merging these two templates would not imply that writers and playwrights are the same thing. There are plenty of general-purpose templates on Wikipedia that serve multiple use-cases. BLAIXX 22:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That "most writers are unable to professionally write plays" does not mean that playwrights are not writers. McDonagh is in the catgory "20th-century British writers". Our category "Dramatists and playwrights" is itslef in the categories "Writers by format" and "Writing occupations". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • McDonagh is credited with a number of books published. But most reliable sources name him "a playwright" first and foremost. That's his main occupation. And the playwright page explicitly states that "the term is not a variant spelling of the common misspelling "playwrite": the word wright is an archaic English term for a craftsman or builder (as in a wheelwright or cartwright). Hence the prefix and the suffix combine to indicate someone who has "wrought" words, themes, and other elements into a dramatic form - someone who crafts plays. The homophone with "write" is entirely coincidental". I can see how it could be listed as a subcategory of "Writers by...", as it does involve writing, and a number of famous writers contributed to playwright as well. But I still disagree with this categorization, it is based on pure fact that playwright involves writing down some thoughts. But so does computer programming, for example. Or scientific theory. Yet their purpose is completely different. And so does playwright, only it's not that obvious. AveTory (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't see any issues. Some of those extra parameters in Infobox Playwright seem very susceptible to WP:OR, and perhaps should be dropped, but that can be another discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's seem to be both same and some of the parametres are not defiened in play, if its merged then less maintenance will be required for templates, and precious time can be saved in maintaining other important templates. --Rocky 734 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Historically, a great many playwrights have also been poets, novelists, short story writers, essayists and journalists. Nowadays, many people who write for the stage also write for the screen. I don't see how having a separate infobox for playwrights is helpful. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:19, 1 March 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).

West Chester Railroad S-line 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/West Chester Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 22 February 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:Copa Truck champions

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) Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Only one navigable link. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main article: Copa Truck is missing and the template only has 2 pairs of links (2 being red links). Articles first, then template. Nigej (talk) 16:37, 22 February 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:Cyanide & Happiness

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) Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN : only 3 links. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 22 February 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:Water supply and sanitation in Europe

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) Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is obsolete. Usages has been replaced with {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. This template could also be generated using {{Europe topic}}. Rehman 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Includes Gibraltar but otherwise seems to duplicate {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 22 February 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_February_22&oldid=891270921"