Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8[edit]

Template:Lazada website[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 speedy delete as a test page Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper template, just someone copying the bottom matter of Lazada into template namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:22, 8 May 2021 (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:4TeamBracket-2legs-singlefinal[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. Izno (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Unused after linked articles changed to Template:4TeamBracket with legs = 2/1. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-2Leg-with third-NoSeeds[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. Izno (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:8TeamBracket with |legs=2|aggregate=score Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:41, 8 May 2021 (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:7TeamBracket-NCAA-with 3rd[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. Izno (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:3RoundBracket with |legs=3/1/1 and |legs=2/1/1 and |legs=1/3/1 and |legs=1/2/2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-QuarterFinals3[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. Izno (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only linked article changed to use Template:8TeamBracket (revision link). –Aidan721 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-Finals3[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. Izno (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after changing linked articles to use Template:8TeamBracket. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-2legsOnlyFinal[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. Izno (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:8TeamBracket with |legs=1/1/2 and |legs=1/2/1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 8 May 2021 (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:Largest cities of Province No. 1[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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Largest cities of Province No. 1 with Template:Municipalities of Province No. 1.
Two reasons to merge (a) repeated information and (b) high maintenane required becuase it has population data that makes the template obsolute rather soon. nirmal (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Largest cities of Province No.1: The navigational Municipalities of Province No. 1 already lists the twenty cities and/or municipalities in the former template. Merging the two would be pointless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-Bestof3-Reseed[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) 13:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empty function, functionality in Template:8TeamBracket. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-Bestof3-ExceptFinal[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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All articles incorporated into Template:8TeamBracket. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Playoffs Except QF[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. Izno (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:8TeamBracket has the functionality of this template. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2021 (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:Railway OSM map[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 redirect to Template:Railway OSM map. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Railway OSM map with Template:Rapid transit OSM map.
Railway OSM map is basically a fork of Rapid transit OSM map. It is only used on the LGV Est article, which I assume because LGV Est is not a rapid transit system. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I feel wierd when editing too. However I think it should be merged to the railway one, not the rapid transit one. Btw, I also made a highway version but I'm not sure if it's OK to use.--owennson (Meeting Room、Certificates) 04:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to get input on the direction of the merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think the name needs to be settled here. Move the one article to use the more-used template and then make the other a redirect, rather than deleting it. If the documentation needs a note about the expected use, put a note in it. --Izno (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2021 (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:Blocked sockpuppet[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:Sockpuppet. There is a consensus to perform a replacement of {{Blocked sockpuppet}} with {{Sockpuppet}}. Some further discussion should occur to make sure the replacement is done in a suitable way. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Blocked sockpuppet with Template:Sockpuppet.
Apparently, this template seems to be a copy of {{sockpuppet|''Example''|proven}}, which provides the same sockpuppet template type. Also, this template can be ambiguous with {{sockpuppet|''Example''|blocked}}, which provides as "suspected sockpuppet" and {{sockpuppet|''Example''|confirmed}}, which provides as "confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet". I propose to merge this template unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I don't necessarily see much issue with merging Template:blocked sockpuppet with Template:sockpuppet, blocked sockpuppet does by default mark a sockpuppet as "proven". The default behaviour of sockpuppet is to instead mark as suspected. If Blocked sockpuppet is to be merged, uses should be substed and then redirected as Sockpuppet already handles the behaviour if you provide two extra parameters to sockpuppet template. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current default behaviour of {{sockpuppet}} or {{sock}} is to mark as suspected but not blocked which has created a somewhat convoluted tagging issue – resolving it would likely some technical effort; the discussion here is probably relevant to this conversation. I think the socking templates could use a more general overhaul (complete deprecation of the "an editor thinks that this is a sock" version, retargeting of the defaults, potentially simplification of some of the parameters etc.). --Blablubbs|talk 12:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support converting it to a wrapper. It's not clear from the proposal what to do with the ~26K transclusinos of {{Blocked sockpuppet}}...whether this is a "subst and then delete" vs "replace with {{Sockpuppet}} with appropriate parameters and then delete". I'm not opposed to a unified template (not multiple ways of doing the same thing) that has an organized way of flagging each situation (SPI-case-link, confirmed-by-CU vs confirmed-by-evidence vs suspected, blocked and/or locked, etc.). But these sorts of templates are ingrained in several gadgets and other workflows and So I weakly oppose deletion for now unless I see support from more WP:SPI regulars and admins/CUs or evidence it's not currently being added (only legacy uses). I have no objection to a bot replacing the uses with the appropriate call of a different template. And doing that, then waiting a few months to see if it gets transcluded again will help reveal whether any currently active tools and users are still using it. DMacks (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support automatic substitution replacement of uses. I see little need for deletion, as it may be a useful redirect in the future. SPI admin regulars are not the only admins to tag users, but from experience this template is used sparingly and mostly by non-SPI regulars. The template is already a wrapper for {{sockpuppet}} with specific parameters pre-filled. However, a bot should ideally substitute replaceme uses of {{blocked sockpuppet}} as you are not able to provide parameters which specify an alternative master and also not change the status of the sockpuppet (i.e. being confirmed/proven/suspected) without changing the template to {{sockpuppet}}. The first could be fixed, but the second is the intended behavior. This makes it harder to update the status of the sockpuppet without replacing the template, which for older socks is not really an issue but for recently blocked socks may be an improvement. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my !vote was misinterpreted by my usage of substitution. What I mean is having some kind of bot replace the uses of {{blocked sockpuppet}} with {{sockpuppet}} with the parameters {{blocked sockpuppet}} uses / defaults to. I would not want substitution of the {{sockpuppet}} template. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I misinterpreted it, yeah. When I see "substitution" in the context of a template discussion, I assume you mean adding subst: to the transclusion so that the transclusion is replaced by the template's present code in the article (WP:SUBST). Thanks for clarifying; I've also clarified my comment below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, strongly oppose automatic substitution - the code behind the sockpuppet tag templates is updated reasonably frequently, and substitution will freeze those old, valuable transclusions and they will quickly become out of sync. I agree they should be merged, but the old {{blocked sockpuppet}} tags need to be updated to the new template, not substituted. Most likely a bot job. There is also {{checked sockpuppet}} which is also a wrapper for {{sockpuppet}}, and which should be given the same treatment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to Blablubbs' comment above: if you mean the default {{sockpuppet|Example}} which produces "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Example", I agree it shouldn't be used, but something has to be the default. If you mean {{sockpuppet|Example|suspected}} which produces "This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Example", checkusers have an important use for that tag, and it should not be removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector {{sockpuppet|example|suspected}} produces "an editor has expressed a concern..." – {{sockpuppet|example|blocked}} produces "this account is a suspected sockpuppet of example and has been blocked indefinitely"; I find that somewhat counter-intuitive, which is why I'd support retargeting the parameter. The latter is of course frequently used, but I don't think I've ever seen a clerk or CU place a "concern" tag (and have certainly never placed one while clerking myself). --Blablubbs|talk 13:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, nobody should be tagging a "suspected" sock if there isn't evidence to support a block: it's nothing more than a shame tag, and shame-tagging a user is a personal attack. But it does happen. The parameter name "blocked" works because there isn't a good reason to tag a sock that isn't blocked. We could recode the "suspected" parameter, but I think for backwards compatibility it would be better to make "suspected" produce no result at all, or an edit-mode warning to the user not to tag socks that aren't blocked. But this is a side discussion to merging the templates. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector – I agree, I started a discussion here a couple weeks ago, but there hasn't been much input so far. --Blablubbs|talk 07:57, 17 May 2021 (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:Biden presidency[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:Joe Biden. Izno (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Biden presidency with Template:Joe Biden. I don't think we need two templates where one could be enough. While Donald Trump had two templates, Template:Donald Trump and Template:Trump presidency, the case was different as the former was created about Trump's life before launching his 2016 presidential campaign and what ultimately what became his presidency. Since there is a lot of Wikipedia articles about Trump's presidency, it makes the latter worth having separate from the Donald Trump template. Every other president prior to Trump has one template that encompasses everything about them including their presidencies. Why have two templates when one can do the exact same thing with a section about the same topic? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. While this is not an unreasonable suggestion, I think we should wait a little, and then take up the issue later. Trump has increased the (already high) level of focus the president receives, as seen in the sheer volume of articles about him. A lot of this comes from him as a person, but we don't know yet how much of this increased focus will stick around in the long term. Trump brought us into a new era of how much coverage POTUS receives, and in my opinion we are still too early in Biden's presidency to know whether this is the new normal or we are going to return to the old normal. Assuming the latter, we would expect significantly fewer articles about the Biden presidency than the Trump presidency. If we're going into the new normal, I would oppose a merger of Biden's regular and presidential templates, because a single one would be too large. If we're returning to the old normal, then I would support a merger, but at the present time it isn't clear enough to me that we are going down that path. The pace of new article creation is lower for Biden so far than for Trump, but in my opinion still too high to suggest a return to the old normal. We should wait a few months and take up the issues of template merging when this dilemma has become clearer. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but many of those articles in the standalone Trump presidency template had a lot to do with then-new controversies which were always popping out every day of his presidency. I don't think there is any reason to suspect a similar thing with the Biden administration even though given how early it's been. It's the same issue I had with a now-deleted category called "Biden administration controversies". There wasn't reason in my mind to have it just in case a controversy were to happen, but rather if there was already a controversy, which there wasn't. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much every item on the Presidency navbox is also on the general Biden navbox, so I don't see the purpose of duplication. I came to this via 2021 Joe Biden speech to a joint session of Congress, and it just seems silly to have both there when one doesn't add anything. The main one can be organized with subdivisions of the presidency section. Reywas92Talk 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any other presidents have a separate "presidency" navbox? SecretName101 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just Trump. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if done well. U.S. presidential templates contain presidency sections, although Trump is the exception with a separate template. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Reywas92, really does seem that the presidential template just duplicates the main one. If Biden starts having enough controversies that a separate template is needed they can easily be split back out again! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:08, 16 May 2021 (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:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Playoffs[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. Izno (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:8TeamBracket has the functionality of this template. All articles were changed to use 8TeamBracket, therefore this template is empty. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2021 (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/2021_May_8&oldid=1023717824"