Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Template:Lang-ar-at[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Lang-ar-at with Template:Lang-ar.
Template:Lang-ar-at is widely established and exists since 2008. However it is just an improved, yet backwards-compatible fork of Template:Lang-ar.
In the meantime, this template's basic concept has been generalized to Template:Language with name and transliteration, and now that it has been rolled out to Template:Lang-zh and Template:Lang-el, we can consider it sufficiently accepted to merge back the fork to the original template.
I'd propose to phase out the |a= and |t= parameters, as "a" would only refer to Arabic rather than to all kinds of non-Roman scripts. IMHO, we should settle with an unnamed parameter for the actual phrase, and with |translit= for the transliteration. PanchoS (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recently involved Andy M. Wang, Mr. Stradivarius and Izkala. --PanchoS (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we speak, {{Lang-ar-at}} has 230+ transclusions while {{Lang-ar}} has 21K transclusions. Indeed, if Lang-ar-at does everything that Lang-ar does, I strongly support merging, as long as existing articles using Lang-ar don't change appearance. I personally wouldn't phase out parameters unless we have a good idea of how they are being used (we can use new tracking categories (?) to do this). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the equivalent change to Lang-ar is essentially Special:Diff/720422230. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds reasonable to me, though the transliteration was marked as DIN 31635 and that information is now lost with the new template. Izkala (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Izkala: I'm new to these lang templates. I must confess I don't know what you mean when "the transliteration was marked as". Do you propose an alternative? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back in the history of {{Lang-ar-at}}, it used to transclude {{transl}} with the parameter "DIN", pointing to the use of DIN 31635 transliteration. Is there a preferred way to transliterate the Arabic language on Wikipedia and should the template link to that instead of Romanization of Arabic (which lists no less than ten (!) different transliteration standards)? Izkala (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here at en-wiki, people generally use ALA-LC romanization due to its more "natural" feeling in the anglophone world, although some individuals have been staunch supporters of DIN, according the WP:MOSAR's archives. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Izkala: Yes, I think we should allow designating (and linking) a specific transliteration standard. We might want to add either a flag parameter, or more specific parameters such as |DIN= and |ALA-LC=, but that would be a different aspect requiring extensive discussion. However at this point, there is no way we can assume existing transliterations to follow either of these standards, so we should really omit it for now. --PanchoS (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge: only if the "transliteration" and "literal meaning" parameters will still be available in (an updated) {{Lang-ar}}. I have been involved in setting up the MoS for Arabic, where transliteration was one of the basic discussions. For lead sentences in articles, the idea was at first to give the original Arabic word and its transliteration with {{lang-ar}} and {{transl}} separately. One day I stumbled across {{lang-ar-at}} and fell in love with it, because it made life much easier, so I've been applying it a lot for a few months now. When I use it (perhaps the majority of the transclusions), it's usually written like {{lang-ar-at|ابج|’abj|lit=abc}}, so just with unnamed and position-based parameters for |a= and |t=, which is also how I have proposed it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Article text. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sidenote: there's also {{lang-fa-at}} for Persian. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS and HyperGaruda: As with {{lang-el}}, I'd like to apply something like Special:Diff/720422230 to {{lang-ar}} and {{lang-fa}}, at which point, {{lang-ar-at}} and {{lang-fa-at}} can be deleted per WP:T3 (or redirected). Does that sound all right? @Izkala: If a merge occurs, maybe we can mention DIN on {{lang-ar}} and ping appropriate WikiProjects to achieve a consensus. I think it shouldn't be a barrier for merge. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say it's a barrier. Izkala (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Izkala: I doubt that this case needs history merge... right? {{lang-fa-at}} is a redirect (easy). Not sure how much of {{lang-ar-at}} we really need to save... — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so. 'Merge' at TfD means 'merge in practice' and it does usually result in one of the templates being redirected. Izkala (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth:, I noticed that you worked on the doc for lang-x, which both {{Lang-fa/doc}} redirects and {{Lang-ar}} transcludes. Any comments about the proposed merge? If the merge goes through, I'll start separate doc pages for these two langs based on lang-x (and based on {{Lang-el/doc}}) documenting the new params (not "a" or "t" which we're considering phasing out). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further comments or objections, I, boldly (it's not actually that bold--there is consensus as far as I can tell), would like to do the merges of Lang-ar and Lang-fa in about 3-4 days. This will involve deprecating |a= and |t= in favor of the param names used by {{Lang-el}}, updating the documentation pages of both templates, and pinging HyperGaruda about the change so that appropriate MOS changes take effect. Note that the updated templates to be merged are completely backwards-compatible, and will experience only a small aesthetic change (a useful link as opposed to an abbreviation note). Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS and HyperGaruda: |a= and |t= on {{Lang-ar-at}} and {{Lang-fa-at}} are now deprecated (use numbered params instead). I checked all (233+7) transclusions of these templates on all pages. They are now in a state ready to be copied over to the main templates. I plan on doing so in 3 days or so. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me; go ahead. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, go ahead. --PanchoS (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break[edit]

{{Lang-fa-at}} has been merged with {{Lang-fa}}. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to proceed with the same actions on {{Lang-ar-at}} and {{Lang-ar}} in about a day (or two). (includes subpage redirecting and doc page updating like the other pair) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (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:TV 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, redundant to {{Television season ratings}}. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2016 (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:Secondary schools in Hungary[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 here (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 12:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template needs to be divided into multiple such templates by region. Listing all senior high schools in Hungary in a single template would be too much.

IMO the end result should be one template per Hungarian county (with Budapest having its own such template) or one per Hungarian region.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right place for discussion. As I commented on WhisperToMe talk page, I do not have strong opinion on it. In ideal situation (where there are articles about all major schools in Hungary) it would be the only rational option. However, once I was making this Template I noticed that there is not to much articles on this topic so I decided to put them all together, and to include only schools that have articles on English Wikipedia. With more templates we will have much more red links. Of course, it will give the reader information on all high school, but I avoided it back than from aesthetic point of view. My only proposal is that if you decide to make change, instead of deleting current template, you move it to Template:High Schools in Budapest and adapt it for this narrower use.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That would be a great idea. Moving this template to Budapest, and then detaching the schools not in Budapest and giving them their own templates. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:47, 15 May 2016 (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:S-line/SZ-MTR right/Longhua[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in use on one userpage. Replace with {{S-line/SZM right/4}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:00, 15 May 2016 (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:S-line/SZ-MTR left/Longhua[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in use on one userpage. Replace with {{S-line/SZM left/4}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:00, 15 May 2016 (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:Toei Animation[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 after splitting into navboxes and categories. I'll leave it to editors to figure out how exactly to best split these out, but the end result should be that all pages currently linked from this navbox should be either in a category related to Toei, have a navbox related to Toei, or possibly both. Please keep WP:EXISTING in mind when splitting these out. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

massive navbox, should either be (a) turned into a list article and refocused or deleted, (b) split into smaller navboxes, or (c) turned into categories and refocused or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agree that the navbox is too large, more useful as a category that can handle the massive links and the fact that these series have no relation to each other aside from being a product of Toei is part of the problem for the massive oversize. -67.171.250.202 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This navbox is far too big to be of any use for navigation. The "Video games" section could be turned into a useful and sensible navbox. Possibly the same for the "OVAs/ONAs" section. But the rest of it should just be turned into a list article or articles. --NSH002 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it does not serve its navigational purpose due to its size. I agree with NSH002 on the idea of creating a template for Toei video games and perhaps another one for OVAs/ONAs. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The size is very big. Split into smaller navboxes is the best variant.--White DemΩn (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2016 (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:SZ-MTR lines[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one userpage; replace with {{SZM lines}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:04, 15 May 2016 (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:SZ-MTR stations[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one userpage; replace with {{SZM stations}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:04, 15 May 2016 (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:Semitic topics[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 clear consensus after relistings. As an uninvolved relister, I believe this closure is acceptable. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This classification is outdated by many decades. See Semitic people for sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think its useful because there are no other templates that lists such topics in such a defined order. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article shows that this classification is outdated and nowadays arbitrary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hesitant to close this as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a matter of procedure. While I can understand the desire to reach consensus, three relistings are too many. Since no consensus has emerged through a full month, this should be closed as no consensus or keep. ~ RobTalk 19:46, 15 May 2016 (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/2016_May_15&oldid=1141875716"