Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 19



Template:J. Tune Camp

 * 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 as not (yet) needed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * J. Tune Camp

The label/agency and artists are linked to each other already, and I don't think a navbox is necessary to link the artists together. Plus, it seems like overkill to have a navbox for only four links. Random86 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Don't delete: Even if it is deleted now, in the future, when the company has more artists on the roster, it will have to be created again. So why not just keep it and see how it goes? -- Deoma 12 (Talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is never a good argument, as Wikipedia does not predict the future. --Random86 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Far too few links to justify a navbox. If there is need for one in the future, just remake it. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Exactly, too soon and these few links doesn't need a template. Noteswork (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Blakey 65moll.jpg K/T impact site

 * 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 as uncontroversial request, may be recovered through WP:REFUND if anyone still wants to recover it Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blakey 65moll.jpg K/T impact site

The image that went in here was deleted from Commons, so whatever this is supposed to be or do, it doesn't do it anymore. Herostratus (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Infobox sport event

 * 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox sport event (130 transclusions)
 * Infobox championship event (59 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox sport event with Template:Infobox championship event.

Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete template:Infobox championship event -- this template is built with HTML table entities ; replace all instances with template infobox sport event, which uses template:infobox -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -  Andy, I am inclined to support your proposed merge because it appears that we have two small templates that are performing nearly the same set of functions which can be easily combined into a concise survivor with few, if any issues.  That having been said, I have two requests before moving to "support/merge":
 * 1)  Can you please notify the creator of the second template, User:Arsennik, that this TfD is pending; and
 * 2)  Can you please provide a list of the identified parameters for proposed surviving template?
 * Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The first you can do yourself. The second is a matter for discussion here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Fair enough. User:Alakzi has notified User:Arsenikk, as the creator of Infobox sport event, of this TfD .  As for my second question above, yes, I agree that it is a matter for discussion here.  As the TfD nominator, and presumably as the template editor who would implement the proposed merge, could you describe/discuss the dozen or so parameters you foresee as those of the surviving template after the merge?  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * oppose, for now, would be better to merge Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event and Template:Infobox championship event, (see the example in both templates). Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The curent proposal would not prevent that merger from taking place subsequenlty. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, it's been 6 days since I made the request above for a list of the parameters of the surviving template of this proposed merge. Heck, I'm inclined to support the merge, but I cannot vote for a "pig in a poke," if you'll pardon the unfortunate pun.  Per Frietjes, perhaps this TfM discussion should involve three or more templates that are best considered at the same time, with a proposed list of parameters (and displayed field labels) so that all TfD participants may understand what we're going to get at the end of the day.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Proof of Suspension

 * 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 Speedy delete Per CSD:G2. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Proof of Suspension

I didn't understood how this template works nor I understood how it is useful. Created by a new user. I think G2 also applies.  Jim Car ter  13:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server

 * 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 to delete; still may have a useful purpose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Latest stable software release/X.Org Server

I declined speedy deletion as not qualifying under CSD T3. The following reasoning was given on the speedy deletion template: "Not needed. The version upgrade is now manually managed. See Talk:X.Org Server". Safiel (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * delete unused and unneeded; having it part of the article as it is makes much more sense.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep ( and restore to X.Org Server article ) delete/G6. Unused, housekeeping. Template:Latest preview software release/X.Org Server should also be deleted. PaleAqua (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking until Xephyr is taken care of. While it was planed to replace Xephyr in a future release, this has not happened yet and it has received updates in recent releases including in 1.17 for caps lock issues. Given that, I am reconsidering replacing this template as it is easier than keeping multiple articles in sync. PaleAqua (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm now leaning keep and restore to the X.Org Server article. Template is easy-enough to change and probably the best way to make sure the Xephyr article stays up to date. PaleAqua (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Template is still transcluded at the article Xephyr. That needs to be appropriately updated before this template falls. Otherwise, though I failed to state as much when I transferred this to TfD, I support deletion. Safiel (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Infobox Satellite awards

 * 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 for now. While there does appear to be a consensus in theory for merging, it appears to be a complex job. Until there is a clearer way to do this, I see the opposes on this ground as valid, hence no consensus. Mdann52 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Satellite awards
 * Infobox film awards

Propose merging Template:Infobox Satellite awards into Template:Infobox film awards.

Satellite awards are "film and television awards". Note that Infobox TV awards redirects to Infobox film awards. The TV-award parameters in the 'Satellite' box would seem useful in a more generic template. Best resolved by making a wrapper then substitutions. The 'Satellite' box has only 19 transclusions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * don't merge, the automatic next/previous linking is useful. Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For 19 articles, with the possibility of no more than one new one per year, it's not onerous to add those links manually, as we do for 940 transclusions of the more generic template (though we could consider adding automated links there, too). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the very recently created Infobox TV awards and Infobox television awards redirects should point to infobox award per National Television Awards, The Sun Military Awards, and others. Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox TV awards was created as a redirect to Infobox film awards on 3 March 2014‎ and has remained unchanged since. I have just created the minor spelling variants, Infobox TV awards (note case) and Infobox television awards to mirror this. The film award template is used by the Logie Awards of 1992, 1st Irish Film & Television Awards and 17th PTV Awards - and others in the same series. The Sun Military Awards is televised, but is not a television awards ceremony. AS seen on 6th National Television Awards, for example, Infobox award, which is intended for singular awards, lacks the various winner categories such as "best actor".  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and Infobox film awards is complicated enough, jamming more crap into it won't help. Frietjes (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at you, creating templates with crap in them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * create a merged version in the sandbox, and I will be happy to review it. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made. There are some issues to consider, not least since one template is undocumented, the other incompletely so. Numbered for convenience of discussion, not order of importance:


 * 1) Is best_directon the same as best_director ?
 * 2) Can we find a better parameter name for best_comedy/musical_film?
 * 3) Do we need both of the Satellite Awards box's best_film and best_drama_film?

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How about adding a bunch of customisable fields to Infobox film awards? The exact names of awards are frequently going to differ. Some of Infobox film awards's existing fields appear to be ill-suited to a generic template, e.g. the two jury–popular pairs. Merging every tiny terminological variation is gonna bloat the template to such a degree that it'll become unmanageable. Alakzi (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * You people should have reach now on some consensus, i think this merging thing is taking too long, it is not looking good in an article where this template is being used because of the message above the template. Faizan (talk) 1:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Template:Auto change

 * 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 with Alarm clock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Auto change

Unused Bgwhite (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite, are you sure it is unused if it is always substituted? Frietjes (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot and as always, you are right. Keep and close discussion.   Bgwhite (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite, I think we should still consider deleting it, given the age, the time last time the creator edited here. could we find substituted versions using a database search? Frietjes (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. I can see this being useful, e.g. for automatic updates of info. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * then seems redundant to Template:Alarm clock? Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Alarm clock. Auto change has a few extra features, and I think a redirect is helpful (because "auto change" is more intuitive than "alarm clock" IMO). -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Railway icon templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Keep. There is consensus that at least some of these templates may be useful when translating articles where they are used in the source article, and concern that merging will lead to a difficult to maintain central template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BJS icon
 * BLNMT-icon
 * CRT icon
 * Dresden S-Bahn
 * GZM icon
 * HK-MTR icon
 * LACMTA icon
 * Ligne STIB
 * MOSMETRO-bull
 * Nuremberg S-Bahn
 * OASA icons
 * ÖPNV Berlin
 * ÖPNV Frankfurt
 * ÖPNV Innsbruck
 * ÖPNV München
 * ÖPNV Salzburg
 * S-Bahn-Basel
 * S-Bahn-Bern
 * S-Bahn-Hannover
 * S-Bahn-Karlsruhe
 * S-Bahn-Kassel
 * S-Bahn-NRW
 * S-Bahn-RheinNeckar
 * S-Bahn-Stuttgart
 * S-Bahn-Zürich
 * SHM icon
 * SPBMETRO bull
 * Stadtbahn-S-U
 * S-train service small
 * SZM icon
 * TJM icon
 * Whmetro-logo
 * WHM icon long
 * WMATA icon
 * Rail-interchange

Propose merging the templates listed above with Template:Rail-interchange.

This set of templates should be merged into the standard rint/&#123;&#123;R-I}} template (which has over 7,500 transclusions); there is no need for a separate template for each city with a rapid transit system.

In addition, NYCS time 2; Taiwan line; and China line could be merged but they would require some new named parameters.

Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 04:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. IMO, the template is already long and un-wielding as it is, with various nested switch statements. And with 7,500 tranclusions now, the possibility of merging and adding more parameters would make it even more of a high-risk and a possible target for vandals -- since one typo could screw it all up. If it is merged, I would like to see it be converted to a Lua module (since it is commonly used in multiple instances on a page displaying a rail line diagram) and/or increased to template protection (editing is only semi-protected at the moment). I view this template's purpose similar to jct, which generates icons for road interchanges, and has been already converted to use a Lua module. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also support some sort of sub-template system, like Flag and S-line, where data is pulled from a specific sub-template. In this case, Rail-interchange would be converted to a master template, and all the other templates above would be moved and converted to sub-templates of &#123;&#123;R-I}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Converting to a module is probably necessary for this template—it's already 76KB. Also, converting would help with adding extra abbreviations and standard image sizes. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree. I am not convinced by one-size-fits-all templates. At best they are cumbersome to use; at worst they screw things up or just fail to deliver the requirements of specialised templates. Reaching consensus is much more difficult and, if they're locked, which mass-use templates are, making changes is slow and requires persuading a handful of privileged editors to make the changes. Finally, these templates are mainly imported from their "parent" Wikipedia and can easily copy changes there. You cannot do that with a global template. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mainly for the last reason given by Bermicourt. Most of these templates are mirrors of equivalents on other wikipedias.  Such mirrors make it a great deal easier to translate articles from those wikipedias into English.  It is also easier to update the mirror than it would be to update a one size fits all template. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't mind if the template works much the same. I am not entirely sure that it is worth the work involved.--Grahame (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose WRT MOSMETRO-bull. Unlike rint, that one is also used to generate line names, interchange hints in tooltips, and is highly customisable in itself. The functionality is pretty much the same as in ru:Template:MOSMETRO icon, for which a dedicated ru:Module:MoscowMetro has been created, so interwiki synchronisation should be preserved as much as possible. Possibly some complex system of Lua modules can be implemented that would deal will all such variations, but I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble. Similarly for HK-MTR icon, which uses Module:MTR (and similarly zh:Module:MTR). Are you ready to do all that combination/re-combination work across a dozen Wikipedias? YLSS (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Each template is very different from the others and is highly customized to the railway system whose articles the template is placed on. LACMTA icon, for example, is different than HK-MTR icon because the latter uses a module, unlike the former. Epic Genius (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A Lua module or the master template approach would be a very good idea, but generally, I'd support this proposal. While it's right that every railway system is different, this is about simple interchange icons that mostly just have different looks. See the plenty of networks already served by the unified Template:Rail-interchange – it works for either of them. Template clutter with every template taking a different approach is a usability nightmare, so the less templates, the better. I would have proposed though to discuss the template mergers case by case, so people don't fear losing functionality, but this remains a Plan B if this proposal should fail. --PanchoS (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.