Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14

edit

Personality disorder classification

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Personality disorder classification. Izno (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:DSM personality disorders and Template:ICD-10 personality disorders with Template:Personality disorder classification.
All three templates are about the different classifications of personality disorders. The classification template is about different models for classifying personality disorders, and the other two are the most common classification systems used to diagnose personality disorders. There's also a lot of crossover in which articles they're used on, except for the classification template which is basically not used. I've mocked up a merged version, although it may still have some bugs around collapsing (User:Xurizuri/sandbox/template - just ignore the other template); I've also added ICD-11 in invisible comments. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2021 (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:Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indiscriminate template with no clear inclusion criteria, as it is difficult to separate being directly based on from being inspired by. This information is better off being categorized in Category:Adaptations of works by H. P. Lovecraft than being in a template. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:23, 14 November 2021 (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:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group invite

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused invite to a project that no longer exists Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project still exists, only it is now at meta:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group.
I have made the correction, & Cascadia Wikimedians will become more active as we adjust to the pandemic & start meeting again. Peaceray (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2021 (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:Canberra FC matches

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (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:Cambodian society

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:22, 14 November 2021 (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:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 substitution to ensure no loss of information. WP:LST can also be used if necessary to avoid decentralised storage. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why this is split from 2021–22 Toto Cup Al, you can have all the information in the main article and truncate it out. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, no need for separate template. GiantSnowman 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having the the matches templates aggregated in Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches allows them to be transcluded in many pages (4, currently) with full template functionality, such as the |result= parameter. With the match templates hardcoded in 2021–22 Toto Cup Al, as nominator Govvy suggests, the template functionalities will be lost on all transcluding articles. Substituting it as GiantSnowman suggests will only result in code duplication, without offering any operational benefits.
    Pinging YANIVST1 & מחסל האגדות who might be interested in this discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All you're doing is taking a template that's easily managed and just making it locked out for many other editors. All the splitting of templates you're doing is actually really annoying and frustrating to manage. There are plenty of results and tables in season articles that are in fact able to be transcluded out. Govvy (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll assume this message was addressed to me. Your "All you're doing is actually really annoying and frustrating to manage" comment is given as an example in WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. As for "locking out other editors" — how are they locked out? Every single transcluded matchbox has a v•t•e box, exactly like every table from Template:2021–22 UEFA Champions League group tables has. Both 2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches and 2021–22 UEFA Champions League group tables templates are built in the exact same format and serve the exact same purposes: Preventing code duplication, centralizing data and efficiently updating information across multiple articles. This format is standard for group tables. Why are matches different, and why shouldn't they enjoy the same benefits tables do when aggregated into this kind of template? Deancarmeli (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tables don't need personalisation for the article, results do, this is what is taken away. You're taking Template:Football box collapsible which a lot of people know how to edit and simply putting it behind another door. You say there is the edit tab there, but in fact, that is hidden inside the collapsed data, that is a no. This in my view is in breaching or policy of an open editing system. You're making something that which was easy enough to manage, edit and operate and just adding a door to it, like a layer of encryption that people need to work out how they can edit one simple element, say for one clubs season article to change from a win to a loss. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Tables are "personalized" in transclusion, using the |showteam=, |show_matches= & |matches_style= parameters, among others. More over, Unlike Sports table, the Football box template has to be separated from the main article to keep all template functionalities, and the table are still commonly separated.
            To conclude this message:
  1. Tables are "personalized"
  2. Tables are separated from articles.
  3. The aggregated match templates are built in the same format as the aggregated table templates.
  4. match templates has to be separated from articles to keep template functionality in transclusion.
  5. This template doesn't make editing any harder than edding a match in a section like 2021–22 UEFA Champions League group stage § Group A. In fact, having the v·t·e buttons, it is easier. Not only it is easier, but after the edit is done, the updated information appears on the other pages transcluding the match, reducing labor and keeping more pages up to date.
  6. You didn't address the benefits of avoiding code duplication.
So please. If you keep claiming this template has to be deleted — address its obvious advantages over the duplicated, hardcoded matchboxes you suggest using in its stead.
Pinging Spike 'em, Ortizesp & SuperJew who might have something to add. Also changed Oppose to Keep. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an actual rule or policy to follow. Wikipedia:Template namespace is an actual guideline and this template violates it. Particuallry the first guideline. As the nominator states, it was removed from the mainspace which it shouldn't have. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline isn't relevant to this discussion for a very basic reason: The proposal here isn't to delete Module:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box collapsible themselves, nor is it to change all matchboxes using them to an uncollapsed state. The scope of this discussion is whether these specific matches should be transcluded from a single centralizes aggregating template as they are now, or should they be duplicated and hardcoded to 4 different articles. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2021 (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:Largest cities of Acre

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all single-use tables which could be easily merged with the parent article. Note that there are many more of these, but I thought we could start the conversation with this batch. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 14 November 2021 (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:Hidden section bottom

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Speedy redirect Just going to be WP:BOLD here for this one. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Hidden section bottom with Template:Hidden end.
No need for this to be a wrapper when a redirect will simply do. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:44, 14 November 2021 (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:DRN archive bottom

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Archive bottom. Izno (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:DRN archive bottom with Template:Archive bottom.
This use case can be easily migrated to {{archive bottom}} without much issue (similar to how {{abot}} handles itself when place at WP:AN/I). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:34, 14 November 2021 (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:CRM in Delaware

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, mostly redlinks anyway. Even if the red links were blue, there's not enough per WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:24, 14 November 2021 (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:Advanced Direct Connect

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:22, 14 November 2021 (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:Effect by alcohol level

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Merged with Short-term effects of alcohol consumption#Effects by dosage Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a table which should be placed directly inside an article. It was trasncluded in 2 other pages which I've replaced with a link to Short-term effects of alcohol consumption. This template should be subst into the article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2021 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Redundant to text in Convention on Psychotropic Substances#Psychedelic plants and fungi Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced all usages with links to Convention on Psychotropic Substances which has the same piece of text and is the actual article talking about the legal status. Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2021 (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:Boiling points for cannabinoids

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Merged with Cannabinoid#Vaporization temperatures with attribution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is article content which should be placed directly inside an article. It was trasncluded in 2 other pages which I've replaced with a link to Cannabinoid. This template should be subst into the article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2021 (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:Decarboxylation temperatures for cannabinoid acids

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Merged with Cannabinoid#Decarboxylation temperatures with attribution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is article content which should be placed directly inside an article. It was trasncluded in 2 other pages which I've replaced with a link to Cannabinoid. This template should be subst into the article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2021 (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:Difference between Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Merged with Cannabis strain#Difference between C. indica and C. sativa with attribution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is article content which should be placed directly inside an article. It was trasncluded in 2 other pages which I've replaced with a direct link to Difference between C. indica and C. sativa (a redirect to the section this template is used on). This template should be subst into the article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2021 (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:TaxonbarMobilePatched

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the module's undeletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused 1 year stale WiP. Move to creator's sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2021 (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:For glossary

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue to keep and deploy. This is a template that should be used since we have several hundred glossary articles, and many of them are underutilized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not it should be used, a case can be made for every Tfd with this argument, it isn't being used at the moment. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. The vast majority of unused or single-use templates are never going to be used [more], because they're patently bad ideas; see other nominations this day for numerous examples. This one is not a bad idea and its use would be an encyclopedia improvement. It takes only a moment to make it no longer unused [1], and if I weren't dead-tired, I could make it a lot more used in an hour. There's no rationale given that this is unencyclopedic, against a rule, or otherwise problematic, and it clearly serves a useful purpose. Just needs to be used for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the merits of the template. We do not need a special hatnote to point to the glossary related to the topic. Links can be appropriately placed either with a regular {{see also}} or in the see also section. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This template has since been placed atop Cue sports, which addresses the nominator's concern. However, there is still discussion to be had regarding the need for such a template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 November 2021 (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:KTM Intercity style

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{{s-line}}} for the Keretapi Tanah Melayu that operates KTM Intercity are no longer used after being replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/KTM Intercity. --Jjpachano (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2021 (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:Tirumala temple

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The larger Template:Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala has deities section in it, making this template redundant. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:28, 14 November 2021 (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/2021_November_14&oldid=1062213005"