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]
  • Changing this to !keep, because there were other factors that might disrupt the viability of the article and the talk page, as well as keeping edit history simple. MarioJump83! 15:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just use {{Infobox military conflict}} for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Vitaium (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an Template:Infobox military conflict. Phiarc (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I am concerned about the size of the article. I agree with Cinderella in that undoing the duplicates will be just as much of a burden, we should at the very least wait until the article is more stable before attempting surmountable problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now The extremely high volume of editing is leading to edit conflicts, having the infobox as its own separate template relieves some of that pressure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete later. The original creation of this was OK. I remember editing the infobox and edit-conflicting with someone editing a section way down the page, because MediaWiki's edit conflict handling falters at high volume apparently. But we're slowing down in terms of edits, and the last 50 edits go back over 12 hours currently. This template is a decent interim measure but should not remain indefinitely, and isn't used on most articles (Template:Syrian civil war infobox is the only example I'm aware of, and even huge IBs like Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) don't use separate templates), and no articles that have actually went through content quality review processes use these constructions AFAIK. So obviously this shouldn't stay in the long run, not least because this isn't actually a template. I don't think nominating this at TfD was a good idea though. It was BOLDly created, and can be BOLDly subst-ed when its use subsides (which is exactly what I was planning on doing eventually). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reduce edit conflicts and the time to load the lead section Thingofme (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above Ale3353 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire purpose of an infobox is to be used among multiple pages. Creating a separate template for a singular page does not make much sense. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose – While the article isn't terribly long right now, it's quite large, in terms of byte size. Adding in the template would make the page more difficult to edit than it already is right now, and if the template is deleted, the entire infobox must be added back into the article. This is similar to Syrian Civil War, where the size of the article led to the infobox being split off into a transcluded template. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now given the high amount of editing volumes. Deduplicating references can be assisted by tools like WP:AWB — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 08:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two things: first it's the size of the article and second is that we have similar templates for other conflicts.LordLoko (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is factually not true. The only other example people have come up with is Template:Syrian civil war infobox. That's not just the only example for another military conflict article, it's the only other example for any article afaik. There are much larger articles and infoboxes than this one that don't use templates to nest the infobox. It's a problematic practice and shouldn't be further proliferated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, page is too large, already a large topic.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good reasons for keeping have been given by previous contributors. Teemu Leisti (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment per above. Will surely help readers load the burgeoning page in the short-run, if not by a little. Dan the Animator 01:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to reference duplication. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is already too big, and it would make it more convenient as that article's talk page wouldn't be filled with conversations about the infobox. Please note that we have a similar template for the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 50.38.184.249 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Substitute into the article. If it's only used on one page, it is, by definition, not a template. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the military conflict infobox, that's what it's there for. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing my comment above, it is exactly that. It's not a template. It's just the infobox of the article on a separate page. Phiarc (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep till crisis conclusion as a brief summary of important facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.235.232.106 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep > Strong Keep This template is used to minimalize the bytesize of the article overall. If we consider to delete it, that means the article will became much more heavier. it is quite heavy to edit it right now actually even. not to mention afterwards if we deleted this. now i take conclusion that if we choose to use the IFBMC, the article will lag even more. it will be a hell to even touch the edit button if this happens. So better keep it like this. -Hunobukokaitobukainokukinkinokukango 13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Just use Template:Infobox military conflict as creating an entire template for a single article makes no sense as well as the templates reference duplication. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is already SO huge and it doesn't need help getting even bigger. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:32, 21 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 We should keep it, it makes it harder for trolls to edit the most important information. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 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: as said, needed to reduce the article size. EkoGraf (talk) 08:21, 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)
  • Keep The reasons stated above to keep the info box are convincing, at least for now. This can be reconsidered when the war is history. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reduces article size, edit warring, various issues otherwise specified by other people in this discussion. ----GTNO6 (talk) 09:29, 23 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: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]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - right now they are not identical (for example dance, and theatre are missing from the 'Culture of Iran') and the break down of the arts section in the "Persian arts" template is clearer to read because of the subsections. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The breakdown makes pretty much no sense; the ones under Literature don't fit, and the "Arts" encompasses all of them, yet is under Decorative arts. Merging is rather pointless if only one article is not in the other Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete any important links are already in {{culture of Iran}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is the better template - Template:Culture of Iran is far too long, diffuse, and badly laid-out, and unfortunately Frietjes has been spamming it inappropriately to the top of numbers of articles. It doesn't help that most of the articles linked are of low quality, many very low. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, way too much overlap. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can go just about any way; I think merge into Culture of Iran (+- any desired improvements to that template) is probably best here. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 25 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"