Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

[edit]

Template:Broad-concept article short description

[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:Broad-concept article footer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Was removed from Template:Broad-concept article footer in 2019. Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That can go as well in my view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:Short description, these are supposed to be header templates, not footer templates, maybe why it was removed from the footer. And can you have two short descriptions on a page? If this is included in the footer, and someone adds a standard short description as a header template, then will that work properly? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 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:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox

[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 for now, but feel free to renominate in the future Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be separating out article infoboxes into templates, especially when they contain references. This makes them harder to access from the article and hampers reference reuse. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now The noms rationale are perfectly valid but now, undoing duplicated references would impose a burden in itself. However, the infobox has its own particular issues with a fairly high volume of edits. I think at this stage, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages unless there is some other "trick" (like transclusion) that would achieve much the same thing. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both the target article and template are extended protected and anyone who has an extended-account will mostly likely understand transclusion, making the 'trick' largely ineffective. Aza24 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, main page is already too large. Similar separate infobox pages are used in other conflicts as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Keep I agree with the nominator (accessibility and duplicate references) but unfortunately the page is very large, which can be a burden for users with slow internet, especially for the users in Ukraine when there's a lot of internet disruptions. I think something must be done to downsize the infobox, then merge the template itself into the article. MarioJump83! 12:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article are really lags and I can't even really edit on Infoboxes on the page. Bonthefox3 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now/delete later I agree with Sdkb that it should be ultimately integrated back into the article to enable ref grouping. However, like ProcrastinatingReader and Hemiauchenia, I think it's still successfully fulfilling its intended role of reducing edit conflicts and consequently doing more good than harm. Although the edit conflicts aren't quite as severe as they were (MediaWiki isn't on its knees any more), several editors are still often editing simultaneously - and the infobox figures are changed particularly frequently. It's also refreshing not to have a wall of code and refs getting in the way of lead changes when you're rushing to finish out of concern for potential ec's. I'd support a bold unilateral substitution a little bit further down the line. Jr8825 • Talk 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article itself is huge, this helps keep that down while it's such an active page as well. It also helps prevent some unhelpful edits if the template was in the main page itself. —  dainomite   21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as mentioned, the article is already too big. The infobox is needed. Arakui (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: That infobox is messy. It's wider and more cluttered than any I remember ever seeing. The last I saw, there wasn't even agreement as to who the belligerents in this conflict were. Besides, it doesn't make sense to create an infobox just for one article. You might even say there's enough content in the infobox for it to be its own article. In fact, I've seen the kind of content that could be in infoboxes serving as article subjects on multiple occasions, one example being the brackets and outcomes of major sporting tournaments. If you're going to write an article, write an article. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template is necesary due to the importance of the conflict.--190.172.89.80 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    necesary due to the importance of the conflict Every other major conflict has used Template:Infobox military conflict, will a entire separate template still be warranted 5 years from now? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whatever its inaccuracies are, they can be fixed. The info box template itself is good for a layperson to get a good summary of the conflict in a short time frame. - (Accountless User) 14:33, 22 March 2022 (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:Imagemap of counties in Alabama

[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 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, except in the user page of a globally locked editor who has not edited since 2009. This template has not had any substantive edits since 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 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:Roadlink/spacer

[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 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not used in Template:Roadlink. No /doc or incoming links that can point to it ever being used. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 16 March 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:Persian arts

[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:Culture of Iran. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion. Do not be fooled by the template's name, it contains virtually the same content as Template:Culture of Iran, and we do not need both (and indeed the actual name on the template is "Iranian art"). Template:Culture of Iran is preferable as it is part of a series and is imo better looking. Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 16 March 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:Infobox World War I

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unused duplicate. The World War I page doesn't even use it. Aza24 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 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_March_16&oldid=1079381125"