Trichome

thcscience_admin
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5[edit]

Template:Infobox web browser[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 software. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox web browser with Template:Infobox software.
These two templates are almost identical. This one has an additional |engine= parameter. Recently, there has been a TfM which merged Template:Infobox OS component into Template:Infobox software (see discussion) for no reason other than "software is software", whatever it means. But if there is consensus in favor or merging totally different templates, merging almost identical templates must be a no-brainer. 37.27.101.41 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • strongly support thanks to User:37.27.101.41, there is only one different parameter that can be easily merged, so no problem. -- Editor-1 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and delete per the above discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge that one unique parameter, then delete. Otherwise, keep. There is plenty of other software that uses different engines, so {{Infobox software}} with the engine parameter would be better, if it had that, too. -Mardus /talk 15:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a web browser is a software and that one parameter difference shouldn't be the reason to create a whole new template. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above arguments. Gary600playsmc (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Mardus understood the technical issue, my best browser ever (Netscape 2.02) had a mozilla engine, no Mozilla software ever had this. –84.46.52.219 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This discussion was originally opened on 5 April 2019, not 3 April 2019 so it should be open for another two days. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 11 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).

Template:Mss[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) 00:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't really in use. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Implausible as it is for me to support keeping anything Neelix created, in this case I can see that even if it's not currently in use, it's a template with a legitimate use case that would be quite fiddly to recreate manually. If someone else has a claim for the name—as a three-character name it's quite valuable real estate—I'd have no issue with renaming it to something else. ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think any applications of this template can use {{tts}} instead as necessary. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 6 May 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:Lights Out[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) 23:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 20:52, 5 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).

Template:Cr-IPL[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) 23:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless template, it's easier to just use the team name rather than the template for the team. And if team name changes, that forces a new template- no such issue with just linking the name Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete although we'll need to check that all the current links are correct before subst'ing. This template is an attempt to solve an issue that doesn't really exist. – PeeJay 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical question : Is the substing a straight-forward process, as we'd have to figure that out before going ahead with the deletion? I tried doing a {{tl:subst}} on a related PSL article, and it left a load of code in the article rather than just the link I was hoping for. Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure... this would also mean the need for deleting Cr-BBL (which is never used), Cr-BPL, Cr-CPL and Cr-PSL templates. Human (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I'd be fine with that. – PeeJay 21:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BPL and PSL templates use made-up flags to represent the team colours. These were deleted back in 2011 for the IPL templates, and I think this is the real reason the templates exist : to add additional icon adornment which is not needed. The CPL uses national flags for the team (I think) and should go the same way. The BBL ones do not use any flags, so it seems the maintainers of those articles have taken the sensible choice not to use the templates and go for straight links. Spike 'em (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case the BBL one should also be deleted since it is not of any use. I've started a discussion about this today here. Human (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've put all the similar ones up for deletion too. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with PeeJay, Subst and Delete. I believe the templates were originally created with psuedo-flags for the teams, which would make them work in a similar way to {{Cr}}, but once those were rightfully removed then they became just a shortcut to entering an simple, unpiped wikilink. There are extra uses that are just downright cumbersome (e.g. {{Cr-IPL|kolk-r}} which outputs a text string of "Kolkotta". Spike 'em (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the reasons above. Subst and Delete. Sa Ga Vaj 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and Delete ,with above reason(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Subst and delete per above reasoning. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-del per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - keep if it's used 46.169.209.202 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a policy based argument. They don't benefit the encyclopedia, so should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:13, 11 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).

Template:Globalize[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:Globalize. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging all Template:Globalize sub-templates with the main template. See also 11 July 2010 discussion.

It seems ridiculous to me to have half a million templates that are effectively the same. So I propose that instead everything is merged to {{Globalize}}, with a new structure {{Globalize|TOPIC}}. Categorization can then be added automatically by the template, and created new categories becomes a cinch. Creating {{Globalize/Uganda}} would involve a lot more effort than simply supporting {{Globalize|Uganda}}. And we also save the trouble of having half a million templates to independently maintain, with independent talk pages, independant documentation pages, and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Sounds like a good idea to me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good solution. Miniapolis 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nomination. I do wonder about the original purpose of all the categories, however. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a really great suggestion that makes a lot of sense, and for the reasons proposed. Two issues that should be addressed also, @Headbomb. I suggest template works something like {{Globalize|TOPIC1|TOPIC2}} for the "Globalize X AND Y" topics above for ease of use, and added to the respective categories for topics 1 and 2 and etc. Also note that some topics eg "Globalize US" display to readers as "... United States..." on the talk page, which will need to be taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (LT) (talk • contribs) 05:18, April 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. MSG17 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite sensible solution. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support why isn't it already like this? --Daviddwd (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No need for the ridiculous amount of subpages when a bit of template magic would suffice. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a basic application of common sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the idea but (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems this kind of parameter already exists in the template. The documentation states that you could write {{Globalize|article or section|area 1|area 2|area 3}}. This would indicate whether the whole article or a specific section is in question (the first parameter), and then which country or countries are being referred to (the second, third, and fourth paramters). This also seems to automatically do some categorization. In this case, it would seem a new structure isn't needed as there is already one in place, albeit the default/first parameter is regarding the article or section rather than the country. At the same time, I'm not sure why we need all those sub-templates when this solution exists; however, the sub-templates do work and are already in place, so perhaps they can be retained but the use of parameters promoted? Also, the sub-templates could make it easier to specify the area, such as "Commonwealth realms", which someone might not otherwise think to put in the parameters. ChromeGames923 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Perhaps the subpages could be redirected to address User:ChromeGames923.-John M Wolfson (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Redirect all of the sub-templates to the main template. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think this has enough supports to do this now. Mvolz (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'd like to keep the see the two topic params added, and keep the discuss param. Not sure if it's necessary to specifically code a reason param (every template I've used will accept "reason" whether it's in the code or not) but at least the doc page should mention "reason" and "discuss" as recommended params. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 12 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).

Template:Rfam box[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 rfam. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Rfam box with Template:Infobox rfam.
Overlapping scope; "infobox done wrong"; latter is more systemic. Artoria2e5 🌉 13:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template arguments for migration
Rfam box Infobox rfam
acc Rfam
description Name
type RNA_type
image image
abbreviation Symbol
Length, identity, and seed are specific to alignment in one database. SS is... usually published? Not much point in indicating.
--Artoria2e5 🌉 21:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - {{Rfam box}} has only 30 uses while the other has over 1k. {{Infobox rfam}} is lacking in documentation, but going by the title and articles, it seems they serve the same articles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 6 May 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:New Super Mario Bros.[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) 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary overlap and sub-selection of Template:Super Mario. Everything on this navbar is on the parent navbar, which is not so large as to necessitate breaking them out. This navbar is simply duplicating links from another navbar on every page it is on. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 5 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).

Template:Infobox surname[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 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 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).

Template:Hinduism in Africa[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. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox is redundant to just doing {{Africa in topic|Hinduism in}}. Was previously unused and all current transclusions used the above code. I attempted to CSD under T3, but a user replace the code above with this template. No reason for this template to be used at all. In my opinion this still is a WP:T3. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: mistake? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(The TfD said template:example (or similar) in the original tfd Christian75 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Zackmann08, I think you might find it that people will be a bit less exasperated if you listened to what they'd said to you before bombarding them with the next deletion notice. Now, as I've explained on my talk page, {{Africa in topic}} is a quick and dirty way to create a variety of navboxes that might be suitable for some circumstances, but it doesn't really wor here. See for example how this template appears on Hinduism in Sierra Leone: you see quite a few redlinks (most of them permanently so: they were formerly blue but got deleted at AfD or RfD), and most of the blue links are actually redirects, usually to broad articles where Hinduism (or the country) are only mentioned in passing. If you want a navbox consisting mostly of redirects and redlinks, then yes, {{Africa in topic}} will do just fine. But if you want a navbox that does what navboxes are expected to do – navigate between articles, then you can't easily avoid having a dedicated template like {{Hinduism in Africa}}. The situation, however, gets complicated by the existence of {{Hinduism by country}}, which I've just noticed now. In a way, this makes {{Hinduism in Africa}} (+ {{Hinduism in Oceania}} and the like) redundant. Its downside is that it is a sidebar. So the question is, do we prefer a sidebar or navboxes at the bottom of the article. Personally, I'd opt for the less intrusive navboxes, but I'd rather leave the issue to others to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uanfala, way to Wp:AGF... I listened to what you said and I disagreed. Rather than leaving the WP:T3 template on the page, which I could have done as it is a hard-coded instance, I chose to move this to a TFD so that we could discuss the issue. Rather than doing so, you chose to accuse me of ignoring you and bombarding you with notices... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the replacement gives a lot of red links and a lot of redirect to articles which barely mention the topic if at all. The red links will probably be (re)created. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 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).

Template:Manichitrathazhu character map[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 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 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).

Template:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map[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 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 19 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).

Template:Mosques in Lebanon[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 May 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 20 May 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).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_5

Leave a Reply