Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 22



Template:Infobox Simpsons character

 * 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 Template:Infobox Simpsons character into Template:Infobox character. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Simpsons character with Template:Infobox character.
 * Infobox Simpsons character
 * Infobox character

At the very least should be a wrapper for Template:Infobox character  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. Seems redundant, I agree. --Bsherr (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk 02:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge (not wrapper). Oppose the addition of ullmanappearance as a "first" appearance should only be for the first appearance. If we start supporting multitude of firsts depending on medium and series, we can end up with a giant lists of firsts (Example: Should Arrowverse characters have a "first appearance" for every series in the Arrowverse? Should we have for Simpsons a first game? first comic?). --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - infobox consolidation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. desmay (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge: No need for this infobox to exist. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2019 (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 Doctor Who character

 * 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 Template:Infobox Doctor Who character into Template:Infobox character. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Doctor Who character with Template:Infobox character.
 * Infobox Doctor Who character
 * Infobox character

At the very least should be made into a custom wrapper for Template:Infobox character.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk 02:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge (not wrapper) - all parameters already in main infobox. Note that both predecessor and successor are unused and I oppose their addition. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. desmay (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2019 (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).

Module:Synthlisten

 * 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 to Module:Listen. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Synthlisten with Template:Listen.
 * Synthlisten
 * Listen

Modules have almost entirely the same functionality. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge. Obviously better if the module automatically recognized the file extension and decided what to do. I think my version at Module:Listen/sandbox does the job. Nardog (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. desmay (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2019 (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:Ahnentafel-tree

 * 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 2019 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahnentafel-tree
 * Ahnentafel
 * 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:Ahnentafel-chart

 * 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 2019 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahnentafel-chart
 * Ahnentafel
 * 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:Not safe for work

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC) This is already covered in Content disclaimer. Wikipedia is not censored (Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link), and it's bordering on original research to have editors be determining what is and isn't safe for work in articles. Pretty glaring policy concerns here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not safe for work
 * Keep - All these policies are about articles and not about external links. I wondered if it is interesting to warn the reader that an external link is in a language other than English Link language, why not tell them about adult content?Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because one is a neutral fact, and the other is a matter of opinion. One person's NSFW is not the same as another's, and we're not here to give our opinions on things. We also have No disclaimers in articles which goes over the fact that we don't put content disclaimers in articles. ELs are part of the article, sop I would argue that this applies here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Initially I thought it was a good idea. But the comments convinced me otherwise. Sorry.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've been on the fence for some time - On one hard I think "who's going to edit or even look at porno actress articles whilst they're at work>... but on the other I think "they may be editing whilst on a lunch break or something".... and so if they click a link to a "Internet Adult Film Database" they would (or should) expect a list of films .... not nude pictures with it ? .... It's a tough one but I feel there's some use to this template. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address the fact that it's a matter of opinion as to what's safe for work or not. It's not encyclopedic for editors to be making that determination, and that's what we have our content disclaimer for. It's the same reason we don't do spoiler tags or cover up NSFW images in articles. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having written a full reply I then realised this template could be used anywhere which is problematic - I don't have an issue with it being used on Internet Adult Film Database and Adult Film Database but I do have concerns that this could be used anywhere (ie not related to porno articles) and now thinking about it the template could easily be mass-added anywhere (like porno websites) which again is a concern, I dunno if I'm overthinking this so i'll hold the !vote changing for now pending others comments. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like I said I was on the fence with it but the editors below have made compelling arguments for deletion. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - was initially keep, but it is the job of the editor to explain what is behind each link, rather than putting an unspecific template on each one. That way the reader can draw their own conclusion on whether or not to visit. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as T2. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if T2 would apply here since there is a little wiggle room for discussion, but I did consider it when I came across the template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Many Wikipedia articles are also not safe for work, but we don't put disclaimers there. Whether or not the exact wording of the guideline No disclaimers in articles applies, the spirit clearly does, and the rationale of It is hard to define which articles [links] should have a disclaimer (e.g., what defines an "adult content" article [link], which varies dramatically by culture and individual). Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line; this draws editors away from more productive tasks. applies here well. Also, the only uses appear to be for disclaimering the adult film databases, and as far as I can see, they are no more NSFW than Wikipedia itself - no NSFW images are shown on the entries for individual actors that I see, and only if one visits an entry for a specific film one sees the NSFW posters (and Wikipedia also, of course, has NSFW posters on whatever pornographic films it has). Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not safe for whose work? A porn producer's? A law enforcement officer's? A cleric in Iran's? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone apply WP:SNOW, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED. Nardog (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to note I've purged all templates where NSFW was added - As far as I know this template has only been added to templates and not actual articles so the entries here should be gone in 2-3 hours (hopefully). – Davey 2010 Talk 14:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Quicker than I thought! - Now only links to some database report and TFD/doc pages. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2019 (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:SPTribe

 * 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 2019 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SPTribe
 * 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:SITribe

 * 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 2019 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SITribe
 * 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:Divine Mercy

 * 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Divine mercy (why all caps?) might be the most important thing in the universe besides love and the everpresent physical fabric of quantum strings, but it doesn't seem like the proper scope of a topic for a sidebar. Narrow topic sidebars seem to have limited usage and an misplaced promotion of notable names who have pioneered the topic. The all caps suggests branding, that is the branding of a theological idea that's supposed to be a concept and not a trademark.-Inowen (nlfte) 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Divine Mercy
 * Meh - this seems to have enough articles to justify the use of a sidebar, but Inowen makes a good point about its scope. I would say maybe change to a navbox, making it less prominent per the rationales laid out in WP:SIDEBAR? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - In my opinion the template is correct and should be kept as it stands at present. The devotion of "Divine Mercy" has sufficient international notoriety to justify the way the title is spelled and the internal connections that are associated. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The template as it stands is adequate since - as Anjo-sozinho mentions - the Divine Mercy is a universally recognized subject, and is often featured as a prominent modern Catholic devotion. Additionally, the reputation that the subject matter has is warrant enough for its own template due to its expansive scope (which has increased over time), and the fact that the internal links themselves often justify the need for such a template. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2019 (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).