Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14

[edit]


Header templates

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HonHeads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:HonHeadsUK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:HonHeadsCommonwealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are used for transclusion of flagicons and article links within sub-headings. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings: "Headings should not normally contain links. ... Headings should not contain images, including flag icons." DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Minor amendment 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are also used into sections in order to make a link between a royalty and the page collecting the orders granted to royalties and heads of state. This is part of a solution to avoid categorization over orders. NO DELETION PLEASE. IT HAS MULTIPLE IMPLICATIONS. –Mimich (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INFO . Head here is meant for "heads of states" not section header –Mimich (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2013 November 23 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 23 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. There is no consensus to delete this template, which was not proposed as an option, but an unfortunate misunderstanding of the use of the {{tfd}} tag instead of the {{tfm}} tag. Reading through the discussion, I see no strong objection to merging the templates, so long as the redirect is retained, and all old options continue to work. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox convention (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template shares almost every parameter with Template:Infobox recurring event, so the two could be merged. I created a few test cases showing the result of a possible merger, compared to the live version. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be lacking in parameters like venue, status, and country, all three of which are useful and informative. Otherwise, this recurring event infobox looks good and has some additional useful parameters. Do you have the technical ability to add those three parameters to Infobox recurring event?--ɱ (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do just that in the sandbox page of Infobox recurring event, or did I forget to add some parameters? Venue, status and country are all there, you can check in the test cases if something is missing.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice them in the sandbox, but it appears that you are using a modified template called "Infobox recurring event/sandbox" which allows you to input those three parameters, while the current "Infobox recurring event" template still does not.--ɱ (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was done on purpose, the live template won't be changed if there's no consensus to merge.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the benefit of such a merger? Also, there needs to be a way, possibly automated, of selecting the US vs. UK spelling of "organize". - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
with {{infobox recurring event}} you can use either |organised= or |organized= and the appropriate label is selected, depending which parameter you choose. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the templates appear very similar in what aspects they list as well as what venues they serve. So I would say that the templates are redundant, even if both of them are currently in high use. As well, I agree with Anonymouslybad with regard to special treatment; I do not regard fan conventions to be notable or significant enough to warrant their own infobox template, as the one for recurring events is very inclusive, so as long as merging technically works, I would approve it. As well, I support the merge because I would like to use parameters from each template in several articles that I have been contributing to.--ɱ (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TCSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for WP:IINFO/WP:LISTCRUFT statistics that was used in deleted article. Unused after deletion of article. AldezD (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkdoc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All related bugs have been fixed. Preloads can now make use of INCLUDE statements. Only 12 pages link to it. I could easily move documentations into the preloads. I just need a go-ahead. Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.