Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16[edit]

Template:Mister International[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) feminist 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational template with all but two entries deleted. Little useful navigation left between the pageant's main article and the 2016 edition. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (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 APEC finance ministers[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) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRUFT as in linked discussion.
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:ASEAN Foreign Ministers[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (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:ASEAN Defence Ministers[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (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:ASEAN Finance Ministers[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (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:Navbar-navframe[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 redirect (non-admin closure) feminist 09:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only 17 pages. Replace with {{navbar-collapsible}} in a table header row or {{collapse top}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:55, 16 January 2017 (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:UTSA Roadrunners football coach navbox[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) feminist 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING... the category is a better fit than a navbox. When the program adds at least 2 more coaches, then this navbox can be WP:REFUNDed. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the head coaches article page is already included in {{UTSA Roadrunners football navbox}}. I deleted the template for this and the reason justified above over six years ago. I'm surprised it still has a life. Fortguy (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2017 (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:RSWMX[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 2017 January 25 Primefac (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2017 (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:Unreferenced[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 Revert {{Unreferenced section}} to previous version. That version was effectively a redirect to {{Unreferenced}}. Note that this change will have no effect on users of either of these two templates. The change is purely a technical one, and done with the permission of the user (SMcCandlish) who made the change to separate template definitions in the first place. Most of the "oppose" votes below assume that the plan is to do away with {{Unreferenced section}} altogether, or even force one template to cover both cases with identical wording, which was never the case. Obviously this is a premature close, and I did !vote below, but I think given the impact of the TfD notice on this widely transcluded template, and also the fact that most contributors are opposing based on a misunderstanding, it's fair to close this now. If anyone has strong objections to my closing in this way, please let me know and I can reconsider. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Unreferenced and Template:Unreferenced section with Template:Unreferenced.
Use one template for unreferenced articles, sections, lists, etc. We can simply add a parameter to a template that basically does the same thing, see this this discussion. In fact, if you look here, there are quite a bit of specific and trivial templates that do the same thing only for sections, such as "Unreferenced-medical section", which is only linked on two articles, and they're put in the same maintenance categories (Category:Articles needing additional references). Also, there's a parameter for saying if it's a list even though the template is for sections, for example one can put that "this list has no sources" even though it uses a template intended for sections. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion on this request. Nobody has said that {{unreferenced section}} will disappear. Apparently for years, {{unreferenced section}} was simply a wrapper to {{unreferenced|section}} but it was changed by SMcCandlish to have separate code. I assume there was a specific reason why this was done. If this proposal passes, usage of the two templates will remain exactly as it is now. The difference will be that instead of the small left-aligned box, you'll get the big centered one (which happens to be my preference). Does anyone have a reason to oppose that's not related to usability? —howcheng {chat} 00:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it appears to me that this is a proposal to merge both templates into {{unreferenced}}.— TAnthonyTalk 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, merging the code from {{unreferenced section}} to {{unreferenced}} (at least that's how I understand it). —howcheng {chat} 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that Eric0928 wants to combine them and "use one template" (with parameters) for all scenarios.— TAnthonyTalk 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The smaller appearance is an option, not a default, and would remain an option after the merge. However the |small=y should't do anything if doesn't also have the section parameter on; when used at top of page, this kind of template is always full-size.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, and most of the above oppose comments are clearly confused. Both template names would remain, the parameters would all still work, and the behavior would not change, just the codebase would not be split. I have no recollection about the split, but obviously we like such things combined.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: as noted a couple of times above, it was you who split the templates out in the first place... please could you explain why you did so, and why you are now happy for them to be remerged? Just so we understand the logic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just said, I have no recollection, and do not presently think they should be split.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if merged, it should use |section=y to automatically use |small=y and |1=section instead of optionally using it. The visual distinction should be default. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, section unreferenced is useful as a pinpoint for newbies. Entirely unnecessary. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like everyone essentially wants the same thing - the ability for users to type either {{unreferenced section}} or {{unreferenced|section}} and for exactly the same thing to happen. What the opposers are concerned about is that they will lose the functionally of simply typing {{unreferenced section}}, and so will be forced to type {{unreferenced|section}}. Provided there is a crystal clear confirmation that users will not experience any change whatsoever, and can continue to type {{unreferenced section}} then this discussion can be closed and the merge can go ahead. My concern is similar to other opposers, that sometimes in template mergers there is a vague assurance that there will be no change, but when the merge takes place some functionality is lost - perhaps because the proposer or the user doing the merge didn't quite understand the concerns. While we're here, it would be useful for all article maintenance templates which have a section parameter to have that function accessed by simply typing {{template section}} and vice versa, so there is consistency across all templates. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given SilkTork's point above, I would like to propose that we speedily roll back to this version, which was in effect a redirect from {{Unreferenced section}} to {{Unreferenced|section}}, until that was changed boldly in 2015 by SMcCandlish. Given that user's vote for merge above, there seems little reason not to roll back to that version, noting that the change will have no impact on users of either template. {{Unreferenced section}} will never be going away, and will show the same output as before. Because of the need to get rid of the disruptive TfD notice on 200,000 articles, if nobody objects, then I will close this request later today and revert back to that version (I know I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I can't see any good reason not to do this right now). If there is a good reason not to do this, then please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable to me. The opposes here (including newer ones below) are all opposing an imaginary straw man of changes to the templates' functionality (or one of them being "blanked" – where did that idea come from?). No one (including me) can provide a reason for the templates to remain split, only "I didn't actually read this" fears about deletion of one of the templates or its features. That said, I would suggestion reviewing the template's parameters and make sure that once turned back into a wrapper, that the one template will still work as expected. If not, then some small code merge will be needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm not seeing any clear rationale for the advantages of doing this. Clearly, it has a downside; the possibility of the code change breaking the template. So for no visible difference, and no change in the way it is called, why do it? It is just make-work for a coding guru. SpinningSpark 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support per User:Jonesey95. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Amakuru above. The fact that it was basically like that before is a pretty good reason to go back. No impact on template use is a good thing. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above Don't fix what aint broken, Both templates are extremely helpful with dealing with unsourced articles or sections. –Davey2010Talk 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose busy-work for no benefit, and in the mean time this tagging messes with thousands of templated articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It sounds like we're going to do the rollback so this template again becomes just a wrapper. Please don't forget to fix the documentation at template:unreferenced, which currently doesn't even mention the "section" parameter, except at the bottom under TemplateData, where it says it's deprecated. I'm unhappy about this whole mess because I have just gotten used to using "unreferenced section". Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merger: There should be separate "unreferenced" templates for whole articles as well as sections of articles. If we lose the ability to have specific-section "unreferenced" templates, it will make it more difficult to indicate to other editors which parts of articles are in most need of sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2017 (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:Union Bulldogs football coach navbox[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) feminist 10:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING... only two articles. The category is a better fit than a navbox. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (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:RugbyUnionAt1920SummerOlympics[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 2017 January 25 Primefac (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (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.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_16&oldid=1083550609"