Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 26 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 Template:Further information leaving a redirect and implementing the wording change as proposed. No opposition to merger. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Details with Template:Further information.
While applying the terminology "for more information", rather than "for details" or "further information", for simplicity. Please note: unable to tag templates in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try to stay on-topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2017 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 19:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

none of these data templates are used outside of userspace, and have generally been replaced by the {{Dutch municipality population}}, {{Dutch municipality total area}}, ... templates. the advantage of the population, total area, etc templates is that it's easier to update all the municipalities with one edit, rather than editing a bunch of individual templates. and, even then, the data table templates are generally being deprecated in favour of using wikidata for storing population and area data. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2017 (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 soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the report here, I looked into this template and found it highly problematic. It lists some Korean companies classified as 'Chaebol' but criteria for listing are unclear. It lists Top 10 but we don't have any top 10 list, Top 10 changes yearly. It lists 'others' and 'defunct', but those list are clearly incomplete as again we don't have any referenced list to base them on (linked Korean template has more entries but same problem of lack of sources). If we had a referenced list we could have a template listing Top 10 chebols by year or decade or such, but without a referenced list this template is pure and chaotic OR. In other words, this template may be omitting important entries, listing entities that should be on it, have major update-needed problems, and we have no way currently to verify any of this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 18 October 2017 (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. A discussion regarding the exact wording of the template is encouraged based on the discussion, but not required. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate and convert to {{error}} - the listed functionality is already provided by the better known {{tls}}, and many transclusions are instead the result of users mistakenly trying to substitute something but using a pipe instead. Converting to an error would make it very easy to find these cases. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose When I accidentally use this it is good to get the result that I do. If it just says error, it will not be helpful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: I'm not suggesting that this be redirected to {{error}}, rather it be converted to a transclusion of it, with a helpful error message. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:11, 20 October 2017 (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).