< November 12 November 14 >

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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

((Testcase table
| _template1     = Infobox internet video
| _template2     = Infobox film 
| _template3     = Infobox television
| Name          = Gay Mountain
| name              = Gay Mountain
| Website       = [[YouTube]]
| Uploaded      = ((Start date and age|2014|2|6|df=yes))
| Uploader      = [[Channel 4]]
| Duration      = ((Duration|h=0|m=1|s=30))
| Category      = Entertainment
| studio            = [[4Creative]]
| distributor       = [[Channel 4]]
| released          = ((Film date|df=y|2014|2|6))
| runtime           = ((Duration|h=0|m=1|s=30))
| italic title      = no
| italic_title      = no
))

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)[reply]

Added an example using ((Infobox television)). --Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2018 (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 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)[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: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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]

Non-notable band whose main article is nominated for deletion. Anyway, this is too small of an amount of articles to be a template NØ 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.--NØ 10:05, 21 November 2018 (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: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)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Cardinal to word, Template:Ordinal to word and Template:Spellnum with Template:Number to word.
((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 ((Number to word|ord=on)) 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)[reply]

Support seems reasonable to me. @BrandonXLF: 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. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: 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)[reply]
In these examples - ((Number to word|0|ord=on|zero=zeroth)) and ((Number to word|0|zero=zero)) - do you need to give the template the output you want to get? Seems pretty pointless then, compared to ((Ordinal to word|0)) and ((Cardinal to word|0)). --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Gonnym: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They use a module so we can just add the module to ((Ordinal to word)) with |ord=on – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 14:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 27 November 2018 (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: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)[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: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 Template:Ltb (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‡ 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 ((lub|Example)). 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)[reply]

  • Rename ((ltb)) to ((tln)) Uanfala, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Uanfala, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Uanfala, content creators are allowed to G7 their own stuff, which is why they were deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @Bsherr: 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 [[Template:. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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 2rv presidential election

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)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
how is that going to happen with no documentation or motivation for its use? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Glide08, can you point me to where this is being discussed? did you create this after your discussion with Number 57 and Bondegezou 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)[reply]
They insisted on creating a new infobox rather than having ((infobox election)) adapted. Glide08 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glide08, where? I read that thread and no one said "create a new infobox". Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
((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)[reply]
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 57 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 57 21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 57 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 57 22:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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:Brief

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)[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).
More