Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2

[edit]

Template:Lang-yi-dual

[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 move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; apparently unfinished; last edits 6 May 2015. Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As its creator, I can tell you that I think the template is finished, as far as I was taking it.
The purpose of the template was to allow two different Yiddish spellings to be shown. Traditionally, Yiddish spells words borrowed from Hebrew and Aramaic in Hebrew and Aramaic, but at certain points in time (mostly notably during the period of the Soviet Union), there were certain moves to spell even those words using the normal phonetic transcription approach. Hence Shabbos (Sabbath), spelled in Hebrew (and traditionally in Yiddish) as שבת, would become שאבעס instead. See Yiddish orthography § Reform and standardisation, as well as the documentation page of this template.
The template was created because at the time I put it on 2–3 pages that were including both such spellings. Over time, I guess those mostly got removed. Given WP:NOTPAPER, I'm not sure why it's a problem to keep the template around. At the same time, if people are mostly removing the variant spellings from pages where they appeared, then this template wouldn't have a purpose. So my recommendation is "why not keep it?", but I won't be heartbroken if it is deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that the template is unfinished because:
this can never render the literal translation:
{{#if: |, lit. {{{lit}}}}}
and this can never render the unlinked language name:
{{#ifeq:|no
 |Yiddish
 |[[Yiddish language|Yiddish]]
}}
and this can never render the text in a different size:
{{#if:|style="font-size:{{{size}}};"}}
None of the above will work because there is nothing to test between the #if:, or the #ifeq:, and the succeeding pipe (|)
Also:
this doesn't allow for left-to-right text (though I suppose there would be little call for that with this template):
{{#if:yes|dir="rtl"}}
and this can be replaced with the word 'Yiddish':
{{#switch:yi
  |en|eng   = explicitly cited English
  |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing {{ISO 639 name|yi}}-language text
   |{{ISO 639 name|yi}}
   |non-English
  }}
So, incomplete in my mind.
If the community elect to keep this template, it can (should) be re-written so that it makes two separate calls into Module:Lang which would greatly simplify it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point on the above. I fixed the following:
  • |links=no now works
  • |lit=... now works
  • I took out font size
  • I hard-coded "rtl" (because the possiblity of ltr isn't necessary here)
  • I fixed the category handler as you suggested.
So, as far as it goes, I think it's now "complete". If the community elects to keep the template, someone else is welcome to convert it to module calls—I don't know enough about modules to do that—but I'm not really sure it's necessary. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 August 2018 (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:Inactive userpage blanked

[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 speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming clear to me that the community doesn't approve of blanking inactive users. Every time I've used it, I get complaints on my talk page, and they have made good points. Furthermore, I don't see a policy-based rationale to this template.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't complain about the template. I questioned why you would go out of your way to find userpages to blank. Natureium (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Guye I reverted your idiotic behaviour, I did not complain about the template. Please kindly rephrase your drivel above to be an accurate reflection and bloody well explain what the hell you're doing tonight. Nick (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint didn't have anything to do with the template. —DoRD (talk)​ 20:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 My complaint had absolutely nothing to do with the template ? ...... Mine and everyones complaint above was inregards to you adding the template to a former admins userpage. –Davey2010Talk 20:49, 2 August 2018 (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:Coi-stern

[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 2018 August 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (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:Preacher ratings

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4 per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_22#Template:Happy!_ratings --woodensuperman 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you mention was two weeks after this, and was for the base template, not the individual templates. This specific template had already been deleted by consensus and should not have been recreated, unless it had been subject to a deletion review, which it was not. G4 APPLIES --woodensuperman 08:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there was not problem keeping the base template, then why should the individuals be any different? They allow to reduce vandalism on ratings (which happens quite a lot in television articles) by making the ratings graph edits separate, rather than lost in the history of the series' article. - Brojam (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The base template is available in case there is a need for it. This template was specifically deleted by consensus. --woodensuperman 13:01, 3 August 2018 (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:Ignacio Sada

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not primary creator of the works in question per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 15:28, 2 August 2018 (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:Australia Squad 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy

[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 per this discussion and prior consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't win the championship; squad membership can be found in 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy squads, 2000 ICC KnockOut Trophy squads, ...; per 2018 July 24 discussion. See also 2018 March 1, 2018 February 16, 25 July 2017, 29 December 2016, 18 December 2014, 8 December 2014, ... ) Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe, Ajf773, Dissident93, Joseph2302, Lugnuts, Mamyles, Plastikspork, Steven (Editor), and Störm: notifying prior discussion participants. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2018 (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:People and slavery

[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 2018 August 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (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:Major English-language current affairs magazines

[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 2018 August 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2018 (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:SockmasterProven

[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 no consensus. But, no objections either. So, I guess go ahead and merge them if you want and make sure there are no problems. Perhaps, continue the discussion on the respective talk page? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:SockmasterProven with Template:Uw-sockblock.
Largely duplicate in terms of content and parameters. The peroid parameter can be replaced by time parameter in uw-sockblock template B dash (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know what the effect of the merger would be on what I do. I post socking block notices in two ways: with Twinkle and with the SPI script (forget the name but Timotheus Canens wrote and maintains it) at SPI itself. All I do is fill in the duration, which is most often indefinite but occasionally a temporary period of time. As long as the merger has no effect on that, I am neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Bbb23 said. As long as it doesn't break anything, I could care less. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that I ever use that template, so ... what Bbb and Amanda said. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:15, 2 August 2018 (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:Radio and television stations in Massachusetts

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply too large to provide a useful navigational function. --woodensuperman 09:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This kills me because I am an inclusionist, but delete as yeah, it's way too damn much for any useful navigation.Stereorock (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is too large to be a useful navbox. There's a reason why broadcast station navboxes have historically been by market and by affiliation/format in state… they're simply much more navigable. (And this is for the relatively small state of Massachusetts… an equivalent navbox for the likes of California or Texas would be simply enormous!) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 7 August 2018 (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:@GERMANY

[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 2018 August 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 9 August 2018 (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:Carlos Castaneda

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial template, not a significant topic, "related" links are to be merged and redirected, books can be linked from article. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 09:51, 2 August 2018 (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:Belarusian Supreme Council

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template only links three articles, unlikely to be expanded as the convocations were effectively disbanded in 1996. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 09:50, 2 August 2018 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_2&oldid=1073153532"