Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 20

March 20

Template:Nryf

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; deleted as G2 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Template:Nryf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Created in 3 edits over 3 minutes edits on 10 September 2016‎ by User:AppleRED, then nothing. Purpose is unclear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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:Global Force Wrestling employees

• Template:Global Force Wrestling employees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel. Same reasons, GFW hasn't a regular roster. It's impossible to create an article or template about it. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Support per nom. APM (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Straight Edge Society

• Template:Straight Edge Society (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Also proposing Template:Vince's Devils (suggestion made by APM) Template:The Ascension Template:The Brood Template:The Corre Template:The American Wolves Template:The Fabulous Kangaroos for the same reason

Small wrestling stable. Just 4 members, I don't think the SES needs a template for just 4 members. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Support per nom. Would also suggest a deletion of Template:Vince's Devils for similar reasons. APM (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice. I'm watching the category and I found some similar templates. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Routemap-Infobox

• Template:Routemap-Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox UK railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Routemap-Infobox with Template:Infobox UK railway.
Two templates serving basically the same purpose. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps the UK template (or both) should be merged into {{Infobox rail line}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: Sounds like a good idea, although it would require a bot run to add |subbox=yes or something. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 04:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge, oppose a further combination with {{Infobox rail line}}. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Merge. Useddenim (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. We can consider other templates later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox name module

• Template:Infobox name module (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Chinese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox name module with Template:Infobox Chinese.
Two translation/transliteration templates which have similar purposes, except {{Infobox Chinese}} has a lot more options and is often used as a standalone infobox instead of as an infobox module. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment What exactly would the merge entail? Would the merged template retain the functionality and behavior of the individual templates or would it result in a huge headache on thousands of articles (both are heavily utilised templates with over 10,000 transclusions between them)? It's important to note they transclude in very different ways: Infobox Chinese is an entire infobox while Infobox name module just adds some sub-fields to an existing infobox. And while it's true that Infobox name module has fewer options than Infobox Chinese, its stripped down format makes Infobox name module a bit more general purpose i.e. an editor can use it to add any language field to an infobox. In principle though I am not against the merge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Betty Logan: {{Infobox Chinese}} is composed of several subtemplates (e.g. {{Infobox Chinese/Korean}}, {{Infobox Chinese/Blank}}) which function pretty much like {{Infobox name module}}; the only thing required for a merge would be to add a way to disable the headers. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think we need some clarification: is the proposal that we merge Infobox Chinese into Infobox name module so that {{Infobox name module}} would become the all-inclusive template? Infobox name module is used with Indic scripts, not just Chinese, so my concern is that we are promoting wide, not narrow usage. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cyphoidbomb: I think it would be best to use "Infobox name module" as the resulting template name, although the features of Infobox name module would be merged into {{Infobox Chinese}} and its subpages. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I am leaning towards merging it into that template box. Personally I do not see much value in a infobox just to translate things into multiple chinese names (usually on Chinese foods, places, or events), when you can also use the chinese wikipedia. Also if you check other languages you would not see a Spanish/Portuguese template, a Thai template, or an Indian template. One of the issues with merging that chinese template is the dialects each have their own pronunciation which can make the template very large very fast. I am in favor of keeping everything somewhat consistent for displaying foreign languages for the reader. --Cs california (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cs california: I think they're useful for understanding how to pronounce the characters (zhwiki actually doesn't have transliteration data). In languages using alphabets it's obviously a lot easier to figure out the pronunciation from the spelling. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 04:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jc86035: if the pronunciation was the issue why not just linkout to wikitory. The template also should have another name other than Chinese there are Burmese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Laotian, Japanese and Indian language fields that serves the same functions as the chinese fields.--Cs california (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Cs california: Some phrases are quite long and having to go to each character's page would be a bit inconvenient. (Regardless, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the templates from ten thousand pages just because the information is duplicated in Wiktionary.) The naming issue would be solved by moving the template to "Template:Infobox name module" or "Template:Infobox translation and transliteration" or something. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
        to reply to me 10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @Jc86035: as I stated before I do not mind if is kept as long as pages are consistant with using it. --Cs california (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Don't merge. Infobox Chinese should be kept as a standalone infobox as it makes the linguistic information easier to spot. Scriptions (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Scriptions: The merge is to be the other way round. The infobox will remain transcludable both as a standalone table and as part of another infobox. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 08:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hindu temple

• Template:Infobox Hindu temple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox religious building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox Hindu temple should be merged into Infobox religious building as it takes in similar fields to other religious buildings that are redundant. Template box can also be automatically recolored for differences. --Cs california (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support per Cs california -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question: the Hindu temple template has customized forms on language etc, which seems helpful. @Frietjes: can we create another wrapper? While we are working on this, perhaps time to add additional entries such as Stupa height, Gopuram height, Shikhara height, etc just like we have for Spire, Minaret etc in the current religious building template. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't think the language things are too useful because there is a side bar for wikipedia in other language. But to keep it I would just put it in fields native_name_lang and native_name. --Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Infobox religious building is a template tailored to Christian and Muslim religious buildings. It lacks fields for Buddhist, Hindu etc. temples. The proposer has neither made a detailed comparison of which field matches which, nor stated what is wrong with having a dedicated Hindu temple template. I don't see the "taking in similar fields" (e.g. mandapa, gopuram(s), etc related). If the main religious building template were expanded with tailored entries for other religions just like it does for Christian with Dome, Islam with Minaret etc, or a wrapper proposed, I would reconsider my vote. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to know all the matching fields it is all the images, captions and name data; the pushpin maps and coordinate data, country and local data, establishment data. But if you check the documentation Buddhism is already combined into Template:Infobox religious building. The only one that is not added is the Mormon temple one which is loading data from a table (I think). I nominated it because most of these templates were already condense and it seems out of place to exclude some of them.

If we decide to merge it there are two options for adding the fields that are not there

1. add an smaller module for the subfields like Template:Infobox pepper within Template:Infobox cultivar on pages like 'Fresno Chili' pepper.
2. Add more fields.

--Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cs california: I must not be looking at the right page. The template documentation you linked only shows how the coloring for Buddhism is integrated in. No mention of stupa height or diameter, nor of chaitya-griha, nor of viharas, and so on. Is this all explained on some other page? My main concern is encouraging editors for whom English is not the first language. Minaret, dome, spire are incorrect and unfamiliar terms (spire approx applies in some cases). Most notable Buddhist, Jain, Hindu and Sikh temples are a regional south, southeast and east Asia thing. Regional editors are likely to know the data or sources better. If we create or revise existing template, to include useful information with religion-specific terms that are verifiable in English language RS, we would avoid confusing newbies, may be get more participation, and improve the quality and quantity of notable information in the infobox. How to do this best, only template code writing wizards may know. By the way, while we are at this, let us also add color code for Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Arguments that the generic template lacks certain properties from the other are illogical; the merge would include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)