Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small

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The result of the discussion was Keep/Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Overwhelming support to keep. Withdrawing nomination. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox hurricane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small with Template:Infobox hurricane.
Note that Template:Infobox tropical cyclone redirects to Template:Infobox hurricane. Seems like these two can be merged as they basically show the same info. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Keep they are different infooboxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.33.103 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is incorrect here. They don't have the same exact info and have different uses. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note@Yellow Evan: I didn't mean to imply that have the exact same info. I'm sure they don't! But they seem to represent the same data. It would seem to me that they could be merged with a little bit of work so that one template represents the information accurately. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but see 2015 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Patricia and Hurricane Patricia for the two uses of the two templates. The |wind= and |pressure= field is on the same line in the small template, and not the regular one. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Aside from different template sizes and different information, this is not the first time that someone has tried to merge tropical cyclone templates. I recall quite a bit of edit warring and discussions surrounding a number of changes (one of which was merging tropical cyclone templates) applied to {{Infobox hurricane}}, largely by one user, back in 2014. It'd be best to tread lightly on suggesting such changes to tropical templates based on past history. See the WPTC archives for details. Dustin (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Completely different templates, requesting speedy closure. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – I've also seen this happen before, and merging these two templates would have a bad impact on the hurricane season articles. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for precedent.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mario, these are actually two different templates and merging them would not be easy.--12george1 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Zackmann08: As per above comments. Those two templates are obviously different especially when used in many articles. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as explained by other users. Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small is used on season articles to give a brief overview of the storm's intensity and duration. Template:Infobox hurricane, on the other hand, is used in storm articles and lists the storm's intensity in addition to areas impacted, fatalities, damage, and areas affected. Two separate templates. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note so I'm guessing maybe we should keep things as they are? :-p. Seems like an overwhelming majority to keep. Was worth discussing though. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:22, 7 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:Career achievements of basketball players

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) Primefac (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Career achievements of basketball players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX #3 ("The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.") and NAVBOX #4 ("There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template"). It seems sufficient to already have Category:Career achievements of basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I just thought that it would be easier for users to find these articles via the template, but you are free to delete it if it fails to meet requirements. KWiki (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Completely useless template when there's a category for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category is sufficient. I just don't see a ton of readers needing to flip quickly between (for example) Wilt Chamberlain's and Chris Paul's achievements. Rikster2 (talk) 23:32, 6 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:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Grand Prix Final report (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report with Template:Infobox Grand Prix Final report.
There are probably other templates in Category:Motor race report infobox templates that can be merged but these two definitely can and should be (IMHO). Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 7 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:Highways in Amarillo

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) 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highways in Amarillo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, and here. Rs chen 7754 02:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per precedent and all of my past comments in those listed discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 16:48, 6 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:Chromism

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 19 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:PD-CVV

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) 00:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CVV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't public domain; this is an unacceptable noderivs license. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/20051025001353/http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/vvhtml/vvres.html sounds like PD to me. A courtesy request for attribution and no derivatives is not the same thing as a noderivs license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo_Jo is correct. However the template is unused, and - as images to which it applies may be and are housed on Commons - is unlikely to be so. Unless there is a sound counter argument, delete'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 7 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:Asian Cuisine

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 19 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian Cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Denial of Mass Killings

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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denial of Mass Killings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose this template serves, other than collecting a bunch of genocide articles and subjectively labeling certain views as "denials". This is a controversial proposition in itself, as it is unsourced and selective. Mar4d (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Genocide denial seems to be a studied concept, so I'm not sure what prevents this template from including the notable cases of of this phenomenon. Are there certain articles that you think have been unfairly excluded from the template? CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The denial stage is a really a pattern of genocides. It's not just an organising concept imposed after the fact. I think it's important to keep this template. http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html KesterR (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — KesterR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, "subjectively labeling certain views" this is false. The articles linked in the template are not based on subjectivity. --RaphaelQS (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its encyclopedic purpose is cross-referencing related subjects. The articles themselves are described as "denials"; the template didn't add that. I agree the term "denial" has a lot of baggage, but that's an unavoidable consequence of the contentious subject matter; it's doubtful that any other word would be less loaded or that attempts to find one wouldn't just be another step on the euphemism treadmill. Like CapitalSasha, I ask if your complaint is with the selection of articles. I.e. is the complaint about the exclusion of some articles from the template? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:39, 8 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).