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).
incomplete template which is not used on any articles Boothy m (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I edited this to add all teams, so it is now complete. I am not the original creator btw. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ShadowBallX2: but the template is not required as the league table is already included on the main article. Boothy m (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2020 (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:SPBMETRO color
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).
Thanks :) (I was just too tired to sort myself) KylieTastic (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the S-line templates but keep the SPBMETRO templates, especially ((SPBMETRO color)). The ((SPBMETRO color)) template is used on the info boxes on the line and the route diagrams.< If SPBMETRO color gets deleted, make sure that these templates get updated. Techie3 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AJP426, it appears that the SPBMETRO templates are still in use - are they being replaced as well? Primefac (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until all uses are replaced, then delete. --Gonnym (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2020 (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).
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. Keep, or "do not merge", as the actual consensus reads. Tone 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering about the same myself. Not necessarily a bad idea, but the template is definitely quite... heavy. Look at eg California, that template is almost as long as the infobox itself. A lot of extraneous info which, on reflection, I'm not sure is relevant enough to be in the infobox. That's 19 extra fields + 4 images in use at California. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might be (might) be prudent to leave it split out (with broadened scope perhaps) or even consider deletion entirely. I struggle to see how these are key to the settlements in question, and indeed the fact it is as long as the infobox-proper is bothersome. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - adds unnecessary bulk to Template:Infobox settlement used on 530k+ articles that only effects 50 U.S. state articles. Merging to a protected template also prevents this template from being expanded/edited more freely. Would consider merge/rename so that this template can be used for any location which has official emblems/symbols (the US state symbols template could be used for Australian state symbols, for example). -- Netoholic@ 14:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary bulk seems irrelevant when proposing merges to IS. Since the Australian template is being merged, official emblems and symbols are going to have to be available in the infobox anyway so it doesn't make sense not to merge this one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - after further deliberation of my comments above and per Netoholic. Too bulky, mostly not relevant. It could be generalised, again per Netoholic, but shouldn't be merged into IS. I don't even think it's relevant enough to the info in IS, on states, to be embedded in. Should be kept separate and displayed below, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because your proposal to merge the Australian template was successful, official emblems and symbols are going to have to be available in the infobox anyway so it doesn't make sense not to merge this one. The template isn't that big and merging will save space on the article page, not increase it. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to merge the emblems/symbols components from the Aussie template to this template (if not already supported), and then include both on Aussie states as is apparently done for US states. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the outcome of the merge proposal. It makes no sense to use two infoboxes on a page when it can be done with one, which was the case with the Australian one. Australia and the US are not the only countries that have official symbols and this would benefit other countries as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't what was proposed in the merge proposal; that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One editor specifically voted for a full merge, a partial merge was not considered and when I raised the issue of two infoboxes there was no response. In fact the nominator refused to answer any of my questions. A full merge therefore needs to be carried out per the discussion or the proposal itself should be reopened since there was no specific consensus for only a partial merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't need to be a "full merge" and if you're so rigid then maybe we need to reopen discussion and see if consensus can be clarified with this new idea. Its not all or nothing - the best course of action would be to replace current instances of Template:Infobox Australia state or territory with the current IS template (not adding support for symbols to it), and if the US state symbols template can be generalized, it can be added to the Australian states articles in the same way as the US states. Another option would be to convert Template:Infobox Australia state or territory to a Template:Australia state symbols for just that information which doesn't fit in the IS template. -- Netoholic@ 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did say as was done with ((Infobox U.S. state)) so I figured it was implied, and you noted it in your oppose. The 'issue' didn't appear to be of concern to others. It is more appropriate to have symbols in a separate template, imo. I'd be in support of generalising ((Infobox U.S. state symbols)) to be able to work with other countries, as some kind of ((Infobox settlement symbols)). This would make (for example) a merge of Canadian provinces into IS more smooth, too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the history of Infobox U.S. state. Did it ever have symbols in it? I ask because Infobox U.S. state symbols has existed since 2004 and that is specifically why I asked in the discussion, without ever receiving a reply, even from you. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer... apparently not, it's always used ((Infobox U.S. state symbols)) separately it seems. In any case, I'm of the opinion that this information is too heavy and extraneous to keep in the main infobox. As far as settlement infoboxes go (on locations, states, countries) I think a consistent style needs to be retained across all countries. There's no reason one country should get to use a different style to every other one, it's just a weird experience for readers. I believe the only remnants of violating this idea are the Australian and Canadian states/provinces, and the Australian places. So as far as both Australian and Canadian (whenever I get around to nominating that) state/province infoboxes go, I think it should be moved into a separate template below. The point of infoboxes is summary information. Once you pack it with so much information that it's going on for 3.5 page scrolls on my screen, it's failing at that purpose. Course, you may be of a different opinion, in which case I'm not opposed to another TfD if that's what you wish, a talk discussion (which may be more appropriate), or some other means of resolving this dilemma. My view is the best way forward is to generalise ((Infobox U.S. state symbols)) -> ((Infobox settlement symbols)).ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more referring to the inconsistency, with the symbols (like bird/flower/et al) in the infobox, and the completely different set of parameter names. If US state symbols is generalised, the symbols should perhaps also be moved out. Indeed, I see currently not all province symbols are being listed, perhaps due to template limitations on the blank fields. Re. UK place, it is somewhat more complex, yet visibly retains a consistent theme, so I think it's fine personally. No need to wield the axe if all is fine and dandy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Netoholic Germartin1 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge as excessive, per PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is almost nothing meaningful in common between the two templates. Alansohn (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge if generalization happens. Techie3 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (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:DiseasesDB2
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 replace with Template:DiseasesDB and delete, allowing for customization per the discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this is replaced and deleted by template ((DiseasesDB)). The main difference is that DiseasesDB2 does not show the term "DDB" beforehand. A parameter could be added ("form" with options "full" [displays DDB with link] and "short" [does not display DDB])
Reason for merge is to help consolidate similar templates, which will help maintenance efforts in the future if links etc. change. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELPOINTS says that with rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. I'm not sure these links qualify for that. Which means that having an external link with only a number, which this template does, is unhelpful. Looking at highly used EL templates, such as Template:YouTube and Template:IMDb title, the style is "name(external link) on site(wikilink)", so I would argue that even ((DiseasesDB)) is bad and should follow that style. My !vote would be to replace with ((DiseasesDB)), move uses inside the body of the article to the EL section and update text to follow the more established style on en.wiki which is much more reader friendly. --Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I'd support deletion and replacement as you propose.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2020 (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:Singaporean name
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. There is no consensus to delete this specific template, and there were concerns that we shouldn't deal with this template without first discussing surname/name "hatnotes" (put in quotes because there's also debate about whether these qualify) to determine their general suitability for article-space use. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing useful can be gleaned from the hatnote ("Singaporean name" is a redlink)--a pointless template. Similarly there's no Template:Tunisian name, Template:American name. The supposed rationale of "(promoting) inclusiveness..." isn't convincing especially if the reader doesn't actually learn anything (duh, it's a "Singaporean name", meaning...???) Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using 'American' name as a comparison is flawed, as the US generally uses the 'Western name order' and thus sharing naming customs as Europe (without emphasis on 'European'), and if you look at Latin America, the hatnotes used mentions for example 'This name uses Spanish naming customs', 'This name uses Portuguese naming customs' rather than simply 'In this (X) name' or 'This is a (X) name', where (X) does not represent the native country of the article concerned. As compared to Singapore's case, which is focused solely on the article's ancestry/ethnicity. For example, the template for 'Indian names' was created by a Singaporean rather than a native Indian to describe Singaporean articles based on the country's 'racial classification'. There are more Singaporean articles with an 'Indian name hatenote' used than Indian articles relative to their respective populations, which makes the use of such hatnotes inappropriate. In addition, the racial classification in Singapore is controversial, considering someone of Sri Lankan descent is classified as 'Indian', which is unacceptable for a native Sri Lankan. If you look at the hatenote of the Indonesian articles or the name template itself, they do not provide any information on Indonesian names too, but rather the characteristics of them, though I agree that they do have a link to an article titled 'Indonesian names' which is lacking for Singapore's case. The use of a 'Singaporean name template' also serves to reduce possible misleading hatnotes and hence address the mention issues. Before deletion, please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore. The description mentioned in the template serves to allow readers to understand why this template is used instead of the contemporary usage of name templates. Gandalfett (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these name hatnotes are problematic because they don't actually conform to WP:HATNOTE, do they? This template doesn't provide navigation to an article the reader might be looking for instead. --Bsherr (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are not for the purpose of navigation. I think in some cases they might be interesting (for example there is a person A B and another B A), but you can use ((confused)) for that anyway. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr and Izno: they definitely contravene WP:HATNOTE. Per the links I gave to C&C below, I tried introducing ((efn Chinese name)) and similar templates a few months ago, so an alternative is out there, but wider discussion is needed if we're going to push toward making it the default. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Yup. I think it's pretty clear this is heading toward a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes. I would prefer to institute it now, but I'm respecting Coffeeandcrumbs's pref to resolve the TfDs first. Looks to me like we're heading to no consensus, which I think actually serves us well, since we need to have the larger discussion anyway. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, feel free to start a discussion now. I am not familiar with TfD. I was under the impression we were going to get a close to the TfD soon.
I do object to the discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes. This is too big an issue to discuss on a page like that with few followers. This needs to happen at the village pump. I also want to contribute to developing the RfC text so that we are not inserting bias from the onset. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. These TfDs can drag on, and frankly I just don't see the results here moving us forward anyway. I understand your concerns about location, and I fully support collaborating on a neutrally-worded RfC. I would suggest we follow the letter of the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Specifically, I would propose, per WP:RFCBEFORE, we have a local discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes to reach consensus on the text and parameters of the RfC. Once done, we would start the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes and, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC, announce it at an appropriately chosen village pump. How's that? --Bsherr (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, no! no! no! It cannot be held at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes. What we are discussing goes way beyond the policy detailed there. It affects 1000s of articles and can create confusion and disruption across the entire Wikipedia. I do not think you are fully grasping the outcome of such a change. ((Chinese name)) alone has 16,152 transclusions. ((Korean name)) has 8,804 transclusions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we should have a local discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes to determine the best venue, then. --Bsherr (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, that is reasonable. Please ping me. I have too many pages on my watchlist. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that the template was created and implemented before a consensus was established. This is a controversial topic that requires discussion. The end result may be that the creation of another template may be unnecessary although I do support the idea of using a naming hatnote to inform the reader about how the subject of a biography should be addressed if it is not the Wikipedia convention of using the last name (i.e. MOS:SURNAME). (Relevant discussion is at [2] and [3]) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Template:Patronymic name if possible – These types of hatnotes have existed for as long I have been editing Wikipedia. While Sdkb, in March 2020, AFAIK without discussion, added in WP:HATPAT a suggestion that efns can be used as an alternative, the Category:Hatnote templates for names has been listed in the policy since August 2015. We should not single this template out for deletion without a wider discussion about all these templates. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, prior to making that edit, I put a "please see" at the talk page to the discussion; there was also some discussion at a user talk page here, and a related bot request is currently open here. I think we should definitely have a wider discussion about surname hatnotes; I am very much not a fan of them. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:47, 2 September 2020 (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).