Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Template:Elections in the Lithuanian SSR[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 23:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and only one link. Same set of the one existing article and ten red links already on Template:Lithuanian elections. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If the other articles existed, I could understand this being kept, but as it is, this serves very little purpose.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:44, 31 October 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).

Module:No globals[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 after we are completely sure that the module has been orphaned Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by require('strict'). My understanding (from the talk page) is that User:Legoktm and User:WOSlinker have already done a number of replacements. It will take some time for the job queue to process these and reveal how much usage is left, but we might as well discuss deletion/deprecation now. User:GKFXtalk 22:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I don't think we should do anything yet. I already marked the module as deprecated, there's no one contesting that (AFAIS). I think it would be better to discuss this in a month or so once the job queue has actually finished. I assume it'll get deleted at that point. Legoktm (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: Can we not just deprecate this one and just categorise its usage for some time. Just in case someone reverts a module to three versions back, it will just break, if this is deleted. Someone might come back from inactivity and not know the new feature. Also, this module has been imported/copied to at least 200+ other Wikipedias and possibly other projects too, as it used to be a major component of most modules. I think it needs to be kept for attribution purposes? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably say that about a number of templates that get deleted. They might well have been copied over to other Wikipedias, but it doesn't stop them being deleted here. You could always put the original authors names in the deletion note if you wanted to as well so that it is still visible. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of copyright is extremely limited, if established TfD editors think that it wouldn't cause issues, then I'm perfectly fine. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: I don't understand, how is it not already deprecated? In any case, Pppery's plan sounds good. Legoktm (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established at TfD that preserving old revisions is very rarely valid reason to keep a template or module. While I top would have waited for the job queue to process all of the uses, since we're here the template can sit in the holding cell while that happens. The English Wikipedia is not a template repository and should not care about what other projects to. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Pppery on timeline and implementation. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 30 October 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:Current U.S. representatives from North Dakota[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 November 6. Izno (talk) 07:21, 6 November 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:Presidency of Ukraine[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 keep. ✗plicit 23:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the presidency of Ukraine. Normally the only navboxes we have for such a position is the presidents navbox listing all those who have served as president of the country. We don't have a need to list articles about every little thing we have related to the concept or the topic of the presidency. It's best to link them on related articles. Such as the elections, inauguration, agencies/departments of the government, and so forth. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Flawed reasoning when similar navboxes exist across this entire Wiki, among other high importance articles. See for instance {{United States presidential elections}} and {{United States Armed Forces}} both of which are jam-packed with relevant articles. Who says that for positions such as the Presidency, the template needs to only have the individual Presidents' names and not list all other relevant articles in the navbox? How else would you give the reader a good idea of where else to look? Categories don't do much to help the average Wiki reader. Having a template with this format is very useful for those seeking to find other articles on the topic, since the subject matter has many different directions and sub articles that can be viewed by the reader. § DDima 23:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those navboxes you cite are specific to a certain subject. They are packed with relevant articles because they are related to the scope of the navbox. So no, your rationale is wrong and just false when you say "similar navboxes exist across the entire Wiki." They don't. This is the only such navbox of its kind that just adds links about a broad subject that's better off being in other navboxes. All election links are covered by Template:Ukrainian elections. All presidents are covered by Template:Presidents of Ukraine. And the vast majority of the links are covered by other navboxes for specific topics. This has become redundant. And linking them on related articles still works as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is there content for the infobox? Yes. Is the infobox useful to readers? Likely, since it collects topics into one easy-to-access location.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup the overlap. For example, there is absolutely no reason why we need to include a list of presidents on {{Presidency of Ukraine}} when {{Presidents of Ukraine}} is in the same article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did some cleanup so it should look better, this template should be about the Presidency of Ukraine as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 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:Début tableau des communes d'un canton français[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 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Markussep Talk 19:31, 29 October 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:Nimravidae[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 keep. ✗plicit 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Nimravidae with Template:Feliformia.
Not large enough for a standalone navbox, and would be better off being merged into the Feliformia navbox. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Nimravidae is enough for a perfectly serviceable navbox on its own. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I've done this template to navigate around the already existing ones, not to merge them with it... If they were to be merged, the best solution would be to create a new collapsed section for Nimravids, which would pretty much negate the interest of the merging... Larrayal (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I see nothing wrong with it. "It's small" isn't exactly a compelling argument.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:42, 31 October 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:Song ratings[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:Music ratings. Izno (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Song ratings and Template:Single ratings with Template:Album ratings.
Aside from some minor visual differences (text alignment, text size, etc.), I'm not sure I see the difference between these two templates or any reason for them to be separate. Both use the same code (stated explicitly at Template_talk:Song_ratings#Just created this template), both have a default title of "Professional ratings" which can apply to any release without issue, and it appears that song ratings only appears on a few dozen pages compared to album ratings' thousands. Perhaps renaming album ratings to something more general like "music ratings" would help eliminate potential confusion. I think that's a much better solution than just having two separate templates that accomplish the exact same task. QuietHere (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. QuietHere (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the merge sounds like a good idea because if the current {{Song ratings}} stays separate, it needs fixing because there's a bug which doesn't show the ratings half the time. Very few songs/singles get rated anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and rename: I've been editing music for 8 years and didn't even know a ratings template existed for songs. This TfD was the first I've heard of {{Song ratings}}. Really drives home Richard's point of how seldom it's used. Why be redundant, especially when it doesn't work as intended? dannymusiceditor oops 03:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Worth noting that Template:Single ratings also exists and is extremely similar to the templates mentioned above, both in looks and in function. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
    📝 "Don't get complacent..."     06:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness. That one doesn't even have any visual differences. Absolutely looping this one into this merger as well. QuietHere (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per above and rename to {{Recording ratings}} (amended: or {{Music ratings}} as proposed below). --Muhandes (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect "music ratings" would be a more searchable option. To my mind, "recording" is vague and not explicitly musical so it's not the name I would expect to find this template under, and that could be troublesome for newer editors. "Music" is more specific and wouldn't have the same issue. QuietHere (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, amended my vote. Muhandes (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging per above. The fact that "song ratings" and "single ratings" rarely get used (my only experience with the latter getting used is in "Your Power") proves that there is virtually zero demand for these templates. They are made more redundant by the fact that they look extremely similar to one another. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
    📝 "Don't get complacent..."     02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and rename to {{Music ratings}} per QuietHere. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and rename: I want to echo what DannyMusicEditor mentioned, in that I too have been editing for a long while did not know that a song ratings infobox existed.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know about it until I saw it the other day on Tighten Up (The Black Keys song), and only noticed because of the left-aligned text and thinking that was strange. Made this proposal immediately after. Amazing just how many of us this eluded all this time given it was created in February 2012. QuietHere (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be succinct, that looks terrible. dannymusiceditor oops 16:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and rename: as per the points made by DannyMusicEditor and DigitalIceAge. GR86 (📱) 20:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: tbh, I don't see the purpose of merging single/song ratings with album ratings, plus the ratings of song/single ratings differs a lot from album ratings, which can be quite perplexing, not to mention that they are completely separate ratings to the album ratings, therefore, you can't conclude whether the record recieved a positive, mixed or negative reception; either way there aren't a lot of songs/singles that have a music rating, so what's the point of merging them all together? Moh8213 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moh8213 I think you may have missed the point of this proposal. The problem is that the song and single ratings templates are copies of the album ratings one that don't change anything fundamental about that original design and thus don't serve a unique purpose worth having them separated. And the ratings don't differ, they're all typically out of five stars. And with renaming the template, it'll be clear that it applies to all types of music that gets a star rating, not just albums. The rest of what you're saying I admit I don't understand; I think we're all aware that ratings for singles are separate from that of albums, and we wouldn't be combining them in any way. This is for a template that belongs on articles for individual songs and it won't be mixed up with the album. If that's what you think will be of issue, trust me when I say it won't. If not, please clarify. QuietHere (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and rename to {{Music ratings}} per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, rename. I am one of the many who didn't know {{song ratings}} existed. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:58, 5 November 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_October_29&oldid=1121732569"