Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 13



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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC) no longer needed after being replaced with infobox film awards (thanks to User:Gonnym for making this possible) Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox Satellite awards
 * Support deletion per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and no longer needed now.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (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).

Template:Deities in Thai folk religion

 * 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 2018 November 21. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deities_in_Thai_folk_religion
 * Deity_of_folk_religion_thailand
 * 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 reality show candidates

 * 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 Template:Infobox reality show candidates after replacing with Infobox television season (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox reality show candidates - 20 transclusions
 * Infobox television season/custom - 232 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox reality show candidates with Template:Infobox television season/custom.

The "reality show" template is used for UK series of The Apprentice; the other template is used for versions of the same show in other territories, and more. The merged template should not be named as a sub-template of Infobox television season. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The Infobox reality show candidates is not really an infobox in the same sense as the other one (it does not use the infobox module). It's just a list of the contestants and when they existed the show and in almost all articles, it's just a duplicate of another table that is in the article itself. See The Apprentice (UK series seven) and notice the infobox and the Performance Chart. I don't see how they can be merged, but I do support the deletion of this one as having two "infoboxes" is just bad article layout, and the season one does not duplicate any table, as this one does. --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion and replacement would be fine by me also. Either way, there is no earthly reason to treat the UK part of the franchise differently to the rest. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Replace - As deletion is an option now. --Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and Replace - I'm against the idea of merging this, but rather for deleting it and replacing it with an the Television Season Infobox template. Gonnym has highlighted something here - it seems rather odd that this infobox template was created to highlight candidate performance, when each respective article it was added to has already got a much clearer set of tables that provide rather well-detailed, clear and concise information over each candidate's performance. GUtt01 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I never really understood why the articles were using this and not Infobox television season, which provides more important information that this template does not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Oh God NO!!! These are two completely different templates with no real relationship between the two. Infobox television season/custom was created as a necessary evil when I merged several infoboxes very similar to Infobox television season into that template without wanting to add a host of unnecessary and really unwanted fields to Infobox television season (The unwanted fields were why the infoboxes were created in the first place). Ideally I would have removed the extra fields altogether but I had no consensus for that. We don't include lists of reality show contestants in TV infoboxes, which is what Infobox reality show candidates does. As pointed out, it isn't an infobox anyway, it's just a list of contestants and like Gonnym I would support its deletion which would be preferential to a merge of any sort. To be honest, I'd love to see both templates deleted but Infobox television season/custom is used in 232 articles. As for the suggestion that "the merged template should not be named as a sub-template of Infobox television season" that really makes no sense since Infobox television season/custom is specifically based on Infobox television season and is a wrapper for that infobox. We should be aiming to have ONE infobox in TV season articles, not two. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:55, 13 November 2018 (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).

Template:Infobox internet video

 * 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox internet video

Only 15 transclusions and - in the age of Netflix et al especially - redundant to Infobox film or Infobox television episode. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: to which one should usages convert to? --Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that be decided on a case-by-case basis, but predict that most will use Infobox film. Note, for example, that one instance is on Gay Mountain, which first aired on UK terrestrial TV; whereas We Solve the Crime, which also has one, was made for a film festival. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I'll support that process then as it makes sense. --Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Redundant to infobox film. Slightly different, but almost the same result can be reached. w umbolo   ^^^  19:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It could be really nice to see an example. E.g. how would you convert the one in Gay Mountain? AFAICS, none of the parameters are supported by infobox film. Christian75 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if Infobox film is used, then except the website and category it could look like this. Please note though, that even regular films don't have a location_released parameter, to distinguish between online (The Thinning), film festival, or regular theaters, nor do they have genre. --Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That highlights another problem with the 'internet video' template. The lede of Gay Mountain tells us that "it first aired across all of Channel 4's television channels", yet the infobox makes it look like a YouTube exclusive. It's one of the cases where Infobox television episode would probably be best. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added an example using Infobox television. --Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2018 (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).

Template:Infobox pictish stone

 * 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 2018 November 21. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox_pictish_stone
 * Infobox_artifact
 * 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:USTP

 * 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Unused template, not likely to be used since the "institutes" have been merged into the main article University of São Tomé and Príncipe. Markussep Talk 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * USTP
 * 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:B.l.o.w.

 * 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 withdrawn and this can be quickly renominated once the AfD is closed. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Non-notable band whose main article is nominated for deletion. Anyway, this is too small of an amount of articles to be a template N  Ø  09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * B.l.o.w.
 *  Keep for now - AFD before TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I suggest withdrawing this nomination and waiting for the WP:AFD to be closed - if the AFD is closed as delete then this template certainly would be deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup I'm okay with this being archived. Although the deletion discussion (which seems to be heading toward deleting the bio as well) has a definite consensus to delete the articles about their albums, at least. So this template can be deleted anyway since the bio is the only article that will be retained, if even that.-- N Ø  10:05, 21 November 2018 (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).

Template:Cardinal to word

 * 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 convert to Lua. The consensus is that Number to word is a better template because of its usage of Lua and ability to handle the cases of the other templates, but since it does use Lua it makes more sense to just rewrite each template to invoke the module directly (mainly to save on typing and confusion). Primefac (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Cardinal to word, Template:Ordinal to word and Template:Spellnum with Template:Number to word.
 * Cardinal to word (302 transclusion)
 * Ordinal to word (332 transclusion)
 * Number to word (151 transclusion)
 * Spellnum (31 transclusion)

Number to word allows for way bigger numbers and is more organized because it uses Lua. With a little more code the maximum number can be increased even more (not like it has to be). Number to word also has the option to hyphenate the output. Cardinal to word and Number to word are almost the exact same and Ordinal to word and are once again almost the same. Spellnum already uses the same module as Number to word, but with a few minor differences. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  03:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support seems reasonable to me. can you add some info above about the transclusion counts for each of the templates? This will be helpful to understand how much each template is used. Additionally, make sure you get some good test cases going to make sure that no edge cases are missed. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added transclusion to the Tfd links at the top and made a test case at User:BrandonXLF/sandbox/5, feel free to edit it. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In these examples -  and   - do you need to give the template the output you want to get? Seems pretty pointless then, compared to   and  . --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As of now, yes, but when someone does the merge, the functionality can be added easily. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support very similar templates, except Ordinal to word should just be made into a wrapper as is more convenient than  . Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They use a module so we can just add the module to Ordinal to word with on – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  14:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 27 November 2018 (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).

Template:Mediated

 * 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 2018 November 21. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mediated
 * Mediation
 * 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:Ltb

 * 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 consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ltb
 * lab ‡
 * lb2 †
 * lpb †
 * lmb †
 * lcb †
 * lub †
 * lfb †
 * lwb †
 * Link templates †
 * ‡ Restored original target
 * † Speedily deleted under criteria G7

A rather useless family of templates from what I can tell. Templates like la or lf make sense because they add additional links, but these only add a link to the target, and it's just as easy to type User:Example as it is to type. The last template is being listed because if these templates are deleted this will be duplicated by the existing usage examples. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are pretty useless I guess, G7. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  00:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I tagged them with G7, FYI. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what most these template do now that they've been deleted, but at least ltb serves a useful purpose: occasionally it's useful to be able to easily link to a template without the distracting visual candy of the curly brackets, and in a way that makes it explicit the link is to a template (and typing is better than Template:Foo. Strange that none of the bewildering variety of template-linking templates seems to do that. Though if such a template is kept, then its name ought to start with tl- rather than lt-, as this family of templates normally provide a full set of links. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename ltb to tln, I think ltb should be renamed to Tln (which is currently a underused redirect) tln would stand for template link normal, as in it's a normal link to a template. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Though of course, the incoming links to tln would need to be fixed first. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the incoming links have been fixed, can I proceed with the renaming or do we have to get an admin to do an history move? – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That was quick, well done! As for the move, we should keep the history, and I don't think there's any rush. It's preferable to have this discussion run its course, in case someone objects or people come up with different ideas. I was even thinking of starting an RfD discussion about tln, to give the opportunity for comment to any editors who might still be using/watching it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's been used since 2006ish, I think a new TfD might be a good idea, but since it not actively used, I think just letting this TfD finish is a better idea. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding that it's generally not a good idea to have stuff deleted before first checking for transclusions. Template:Lmb was used at Module:Calendar date/Events (I've replaced these uses for the time being to prevent disruption to articles ). – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , content creators are allowed to G7 their own stuff, which is why they were deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss ltb

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Template:Ltb. The benefit of convenience should be weighed against the cost of making wikitext more obscure to read and write with multiple layers of templates. In this case I think the cost outweighs the benefit. Bsherr (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you says the same if the template was called tln. I'm asking because many editors know what the tl series of templates does, so it would be easier to understand, and would still be less text then BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:34, 13 November 2018 (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).

Template:Infobox 2rv presidential election
<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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC) unused Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox 2rv presidential election
 * Not a good idea. I'd rather to have the template preserved so its use can be encouraged. Glide08 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * how is that going to happen with no documentation or motivation for its use? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll get to that. Basically, the reason I created it is becuase the policy, in Presidential election pages, to only leave information regarding the second round of a two-round election in the infobox. While such a policy makes sense for United States presidential elections, which are largely a two-horse race, most two-round elections are not two-horse races, and this template is designed to accomodate results for both rounds, similarly to the policy in the French and Spanish wikipediae.Glide08 (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Glide08, can you point me to where this is being discussed? did you create this after your discussion with and  in this thread?  it would be better to add optional features to infobox election than to unilaterally create a new infobox. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They insisted on creating a new infobox rather than having infobox election adapted. Glide08 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Glide08, where? I read that thread and no one said "create a new infobox". Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete We already have Infobox election and contrary to the above, I didn't suggest nor do I support creating a new infobox. Number   5  7  15:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox election is not optimized for displaying both rounds of a two-round election. Besides, there's already precedent for this - Infobox legislative election exists. Glide08 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's longstanding consensus that for presidential elections, we only need to show the second round of election in the infobox; legislative elections are a clearly different case. And please stop adding the infobox to articles during this discussion to make it appear to have some use.  Number   5  7  18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That consensus is based on a (valid but false) equation of a first round of a two-round election with the Primaries of the US. And legislative elections do not apply to this case - Infobox 2rv presidential election is meant to be used in Presidential elections and Presidential elections only. And, User:Number 57, to demonstrate my point about including first round details - the article for Chilean general election, 2017 has shown the results for both rounds of the Presidential election, as well as the parliamentary results, in the same infobox, since April 17. Glide08 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you've managed to find a single example out of the thousands of presidential election articles. This isn't really persuasive; there will always be a handful of articles in any sample where an individual editor has gone against the norm. Number   5  7  21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This listing style is also in Chilean general election, 2013. And it's not much of an "individual editor gone against the norm" when (in the 2017 article) it managed to last for seven months and edits that restored the norm were subject to reversion. Glide08 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that before my response above, but I didn't think you'd be scraping the barrel enough to bring it up given that the style isn't even used on a majority of Chilean presidential infoboxes – it's not used in 2009–10, 2005–06 or 1999–2000 articles, which are the only other ones to have gone to a second round. I think my point about a handful of articles not confirming still stands pretty strongly. Number   5  7  22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't make my point — that if the first round details were really irrelevant enough to not warrant inclusion in the infobox, the two Chilean infoboxes would have been already reverted to a second-round only version instead of staying in a both-rounds version for seven months, and that if the both-rounds chilean infoboxes are allowed to stand, there's no good reason why Infobox 2rv presidential election shouldn't be, too — any less valid. Glide08 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Some things stay in articles for years without being picked up as anomalies. If I'd been aware of these two examples I would have removed them a long time ago, but I gave up on Chilean election articles after some rather unpleasant interactions with an editor who is very precious about protecting the non-standard results tables they had created. I would remove the first round details now, but it would just look pointy doing it in the middle of this discussion. I'm getting bored of trying to restate the same point in different ways, so I'll end my participation here with confirmation of my view that this infobox should be deleted. Number   5  7  22:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if at least two other people insist that a two-round election infobox should be both-rounds instead of second-round only, maybe allowing a both-rounds infobox is not such a bad idea after all? Glide08 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: In addition to the Chilean election infoboxes described above, London mayoral and Irish presidential election infoboxes also display both the 1st and 2nd round results. Glide08 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2018 (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 and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have Infobox election and there's no need to proliferate another infobox type. Also, I agree with Number 57. -  t u coxn \talk 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Number 57, this infobox is unused and contrary to the usage norms for articles about 2 round votes.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if this is to be deleted, there should be at least an encouragement of inserting the 1st round details in articles. Glide08 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2018 (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).

Template:Brief
<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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 November 21. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Brief
 * 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).