Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Template:Early life and education[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 G11 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template at all. PAVLOV (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G11 speedied PAVLOV (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2022 (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:Ambiguous short name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 May 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 7 May 2022 (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 ship begin[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 ship. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox ship begin with Template:Infobox ship (currently a redirect).
Came across a {{help me}} request regarding this template group not appearing correctly; turns out they missed closing the table with |}. Curious about this odd design decision, I quickly realised that this is not a series of infobox templates, but a series of table templates masquerading as infobox templates. For example, a call to {{infobox ship image}} could just as easily be a |image= parameter, but no, it's an entirely different template call. Back in 2007 my proposed target was deprecated/redirected to "ship begin", but I think it's the best final target for the merged templates.

I have done enough "table infobox to {{infobox}}" conversions over the years to know that this is possible to do, and with little if any visible change after it's completed, but will result in a HUGE decrease in the maintenance burden after it's done. I honestly also believe that the instructions for using this template family are hella convoluted and complicated (you shouldn't need to go to a separate subpage just to know how an infobox works), and this merger would also clean that up significantly. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some ship have recommissioned few times after decommissioned (USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for example) , after the merge , some of the information in the infobox will be lost , can you fix this ? Otherwise why bother doing this ? Hard to use ? Then learn to use, cause another problem is not problem solving.--Comrade John (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, instead of having multiple calls to {{Infobox ship career}} with multiple |Hide header=yes calls (which is annoying) you can have |Ship (re/de)commissioned X= parameters, where X is the number of the re/decommissioning. In your example page, then, you'd have something like |Ship recommissioned 1=3 March 1951 and |Ship recommissioned 2=22 October 1988 (obviously the final parameter names can be worked out later).
In other words, I am pretty much guaranteeing that no information will be lost - that would be a silly thing to do! Primefac (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the merge , can the bots take care the changes ? Guess there will be a huge boom in infobox after the merge .--Comrade John (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also yes. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In short , the infobox's outlook have nothing change except some source code changed ?-- Comrade John (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As best as can be done, yes, though some of the spacing may change just because of that different code. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to see the replacement so we can confirm how it works 9and what it breaks) before we commit to changing things.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to try to deliver this as single infobox, as generally happens with other infoboxes. Could be complex to code properly though! Mauls (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but it's straight-forward regardless and I like a challenge :-) Primefac (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like the extra challenge, it would seem that sets of "characteristics" templates (such as those in Category:Fubuki-class destroyer templates) are used manually in the templates (Japanese destroyer Akatsuki (1932)). These can be changed to a |type=Fubuki parameter which then either uses the templates, or even better, directly uses a sub template (Template:Infobox ship/Fubuki) without the need for editors to handle this. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHIPS notified.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that; with all of the nominations under a <noinclude> there aren't the usual article-space notifications. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, the proposed target [that] was deprecated/redirected to "ship begin" is here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are a few of these out there remaining (infobox animanga, chembox, and starbox) that really should be converted to true infoboxes. This will also help the TemplateStyles mission as well for the later "stop using tables for presentation" mission that I'll eventually be on. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also , once the community decide to merge those templates , we need a guideline , instruction or whatever to tell other language's Wikipedia which introduce "Template:Infobox ship" templates to do the same thing such as Chinese Wikipedia. Since Chinese Wikipedia also introduce this template and got tons of ships or warships article using this template via translation. Once English Wikipedia decide to merge , there might be a problem arise in Chinese Wikipedia. In short , what you folks doing , may cause other language's Wikipedia. So please , a guideline may needed.-- Comrade John (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Proper infobox usage as Primefac has proposed is the standard one used all over en.wiki. Having a consistent style makes usage easier for every editor. This specific "infobox" requires editors, even experienced ones, to learn a unique syntax for no real reason. As Primefac has mentioned, all current usages will be converted with little to no visual difference and with bot assistance. Gonnym (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this happens, please follow MOS:INFOBOX#Consistency between infoboxes and use lower-case and snake case parameter names. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WT:MILHIST notified - wolf 20:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken , Template:Infobox service record needs to merge to "Template:Infobox ship" as well right ?--Comrade John (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What will happen to the current templates? Assuming this change goes ahead, will historical versions of articles be unaffected and still display correctly when viewed? Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although there might by some advantage to converting {{Infobox ship career}} into a separate real infobox using the child=yes parameter that could be properly embedded rather than supporting an indefinite number of X parameters for each row of that template. We'd also have to be careful of pages using the Template:Infobox ship career#Custom fields raw table syntax when doing the conversion. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how to deal with SM UB-43's infobox situation after the merge ? Since you can't customize the order of infobox after the merge.-- Comrade John (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comrade John, see the embedding comment above. With embedding, you can embed one infobox inside another, including another of the same type. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you.-- Comrade John (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, any special section order cases should be able to be handled using embedding, as mentioned above. But, having one template will encourage using the standard ordering. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 7 May 2022 (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:TER Bourgogne-Franche-Comté color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/TER Bourgogne-Franche-Comté. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2022 (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:TER Grand Est color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/TER Grand Est. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2022 (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:SKM Tricity color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/SKM Tricity. Frietjes (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2022 (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:Polregio color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Polregio. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2022 (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:Noto Railway color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Probably replaced by some Adjacent stations module. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2022 (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:NingboRT color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Ningbo Rail Transit. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2022 (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:Koleje Wielkopolskie color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Koleje Wielkopolskie. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2022 (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:Catania Metro color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Catania Metro. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2022 (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:CFL color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/CFL. Gonnym (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2022 (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:Budapest Metro color[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Budapest Metro. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2022 (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:Largethumb[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 05:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete mess -- see Template_talk:Largethumb. EEng 03:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the discussion at the talk page the template was fixed. The template use upright and doesn't have hard-coded image size (in contrast to most images on Wikipedia). Christian75 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after being fixed this is pointless as a template; just include the relevant image size directly. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a basic of image syntax. We don't make templates for basic syntax. Izno (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is hardly used at all by anybody, and runs counter to the usability guidelines in MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE. The existing scanty documentation is terrible, and should be replaced by a pointer to current policies which advise against overriding a user's implicit or explicit display preferences or needs. Reify-tech (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify the template to remove the ability to use custom px sizing. The template currently contains {{{infobox_size|upright=1.35}}}|thumb. A template that contained upright={{{upright|1.35}}}|thumb instead would be useful and would respect editors' thumb size preferences. The |infobox_size= parameter could be deprecated and removed, and |upright= could be added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everyone above said, especially Reify-tech. It is a non-solution in search of a problem. There shouldn't almost ever be image size specs outside of user prefs per WP:IMGSIZE, not even upright, just thumb. It's nonsense; there is no real problem, so no fixing it.— Smuckola(talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have objections to MOS:UPRIGHT, which is a guideline that specifically recommends a way to change the relative size of images, please raise them at that MOS talk page. Until that guideline is changed, using an objection to that established guideline as a deletion rationale is questionable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state an objection to anything outside of this template, nor say anything remotely questionable. — Smuckola(talk) 02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basic image syntax that doesn't require a template. Using this template makes it impossible to edit the images in visual editor. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the source editor, it's the proper way to edit -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you stop with the obnoxious "One true way to edit Wikipedia" nonsense. I don't use the visual editor regularly (the only thing I use it for is tables), but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to break it, especially when the template that results in the breakage is just standard image parameters in template form. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing complex in this template, so makes more sense just to use the image params directly. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2022 (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:Netflix Halloween films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 May 7. ✗plicit 05:39, 7 May 2022 (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:2022–23 Northeastern Conference men's basketball standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title was wrongly worded, should have been Northeast Conference instead of Northeastern Conference, and Northeastern Conference does not exist. Also a template with the correct name was already created before this was. Brian (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2022 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_30&oldid=1087185087"