Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Template:USA-MA

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. There is consensus to get rid of the individual template. There is no consensus apparent on merging a state option in to {{USA}}, but such changes may be further persued on the templates talk page Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USA-MA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be redundant to {{flag|Massachusetts}}, which it wraps. There are no similar templates for other states, though this appears to be an extension of {{USA}} and this state's name is one of the long ones... —PC-XT+ 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to Propose a merge, where a parameter would be added to {{USA}} for states. Instead of {{USA-MA}}, it would be {{USA|MA}}. Thoughts? —PC-XT+ 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And, I'm not sure about tagging {{USA}}. It might just be confusing. I put in an edit request, but it might be better to go back to a deletion discussion or withdraw, and meanwhile put in an edit request for {{USA}} to incorporate this feature. I would like some discussion, though. Any thoughts? —PC-XT+ 11:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found {{User US postal}}, which I think was actually created for userboxes, but I added it to {{USA/sandbox}} to make it support states: {{USA/sandbox|MA}} → Massachusetts, {{USA/sandbox|MI}} → Michigan, {{USA/sandbox}} → United States There might be a better helper template to use, but this illustrates the concept. —PC-XT+ 12:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find this template {{USA-MA}}, or if we change it to {{USA|MA}}, easier to use than the current state flag and name templates. --Aidan721 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also think this has its use, which is why I changed to propose the merge instead of deletion. —PC-XT+ 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query for @PC-XT: Do any of these proposed new or merged formats exist for flag icons of other states of the United States, or, for that matter, the states or provinces of countries other than the United States? Do templates or redirects for flag icons of other states employ U.S. postal code abbreviations, as this one does? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's part of the reason I wanted discussion. I haven't checked all the country codes on all 3 lists, but {{USA-MA}} is the only template I know of its kind, though {{US-MA-stub}} is a redirect to {{Massachusetts-stub}}. (US-MA is a ISO 3166-2:US code. There are codes for other country divisions, as well, based on 2-letter ISO for the country part. {{US}} redirects to {{USA}}. Canada would be {{CA}}, which has been deleted multiple times, so I am not sure it is related. {{DE}} is unrelated. Massachusetts is the only US state with templates named this way, that I know of.) {{GER/Nazi}} displays a variant, so may be considered close, but the loop error in the documentation makes me think it is nonstandard. (The way to fix the loop would probably be to either merge it to {{GER}} or rename it to {{GER-Nazi}}, but if renamed, it would still have problems with the code. I added documentation to {{USA-MA}}, which works except for calling the state a country and the code ISO. If you take out the code parameter, it gives {{?}} as the usage.) Germany has two templates: {{DEU}} (3-letter ISO and FIFA) and {{GER}} (IOC) but its documentation says FIFA uses GER. {{GER/Nazi}} has no {{DEU/Nazi}} counterpart. Template talk:USA has a suggestion to show variants, which could still be done, though {{flag}} already provides this feature. Otherwise, I don't know of a Wikipedia standard in this area. —PC-XT+ 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Template names for principal subdivisions of countries —PC-XT+ 13:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, custom documentation would need to be created in any case of variance from the current standard, so I'm mostly wondering how these subdivisions should be handled, or if they should be handled. {{USA}} would need custom documentation, for instance. That would also fix doc problems for the Nazi flag, the MA flag discussed here, and any other variants. If we can decide on a standard way to support them, the documentation template could be changed to allow them, instead. —PC-XT+ 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{USA-MA}} and do not create any other templates of this form. Templates such as {{USA}} were created about 10 years ago and led to the creation of WP:WikiProject Flag Template soon afterwards to accommodate more than just country flags. The consensus was that templates such as {{flag}}, {{flagicon}} etc. ought to use full names (i.e. {{flag|Massachusetts}} instead of using codes, to improve the readability of wiki markup for subsequent editors. The "country code template set" was retained since many of those codes are well-known by many editors (USA, RUS, CHN, etc.) but I assert that in many cases it is still preferable to use the complete country name to avoid confusion. (Quick, what's the country code for Malaysia?) Furthering that thought, if we created "shorthand" templates for country subdivisions, it would be logical to use the ISO 3166-2 code, but that dramatically increases the complexity of wiki markup. Is there any benefit whatsoever in using {{DE-BY}} instead of {{flag|Bavaria}}? I think it's a very bad idea to develop a full set of code-based flag templates for country subdivisions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly don't want to have a bunch of new templates for subdivisions. Also, it might be good to make these shorthand templates subst-only. —PC-XT+ 08:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PC-XT: Thank you for notifying WikiProject Flag Template of this TfD/TfM discussion: [1]; hopefully, your notice on the WikiProject talk page will elicit some helpful feedback from editors who create and maintain this entire family of flag icons on a regular basis. I would also urge that you notify the template creator of Template:USA (even though he appears to be minimally active these days), as well as the major contributors to that template. This is a TfD discussion that I believe could genuinely benefit from the input of the people who created and maintained these animals, and we should not be shy about requesting their input in this discussion on their user talk pages per the notice suggestions of the TfD/TfM instructions. If you need help posting these notices, please let me know and I will be happy to share the responsibility for notifying a wider group of potential discussion participants of this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, I just notified Aris Katsaris. I'd like more discussion on the matter, myself. Feel free to notify contributors to other templates in Category:Flag templates, if it will help. I'm rather busy, today, or I would notify some more right now. —PC-XT+ 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, PC-XT. I'm playing Wikipedia in between client meetings today myself, but I will liberally interpret your comment as license for me to notify some of the major template creators on your behalf tonight and tomorrow. One of the strange things I have discovered over the last 6 years about Wikipedia XfDs, RfCs and other talk page discussions, is that the editors whose input you really want and sometimes really need are the ones to whim you have to issue a personal invitation to participate. Your proposals above raise some interesting questions and possibilities, but I think they also represent some additional complications, and I would like to hear what some of the "experts" have to say. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have more questions than answers, and would like more experience involved to choose the best thing to do with these templates. I found some time to notify some more contributors to {{USA}}, including the creator of the wikiproject page. —PC-XT+ 21:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{USA-MA}} per original nomination. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to add a state option to {{USA}}; I think that's a separate matter.
Regarding Dirtlawyer's query on similar existing templates: while {{USA-MA}} is the only U.S. state flag template shortcut, such templates consistently exist for the Belgian subdivisions, e.g. {{BE-VAN}}. Similarly named templates also exist for Romania (though with coats of arms instead of flags) and Italy (with region names only). Additionally, the Canadian provinces and territories have flag template shortcuts without country code prefix ({{AB}} through {{YT}}). These are all I can find.
In the case of Massachusetts, {{flag|MA}} (or {{flagcountry|MA}} if you want to display the full state name) also works, using the redirect Template:Country data MA. Such aliases exist for nineteen U.S. states. I'm not saying I support the existence of these redirects, but they exist and are used. (These are all existing two-letter flag aliases.) SiBr₄ (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking those up! {{USA-MA}} tends to be used along with {{USA}}, so it seems {{flagcountry|USA}} and {{flagcountry|MA}} would be the replacement using the same abbreviations. It's longer to type, which may be found inconvenient. {{flag}} with the full names is not much longer with the benefit of not using abbreviations. —PC-XT+ 10:21, 18 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PragerU

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. It seems nobody objects to deletion anymore. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PragerU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned after ELN discussion. Alakzi (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: Can you link to the previous ELN (ELNO?) discussion? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. Alakzi (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Alakzi that this template serves no useful purpose and should be deleted, I think this discussion should be closed as the previous TfD was closed a mere 18 days ago with no consensus, and as far as I can tell nothing has changed since then. If the purpose of this new discussion is to challenge the closing of the previous one, we have a procedure for that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous TfD was initiated before the ELN discussion, while the template was still in use. I do not wish to contest the previous close, which I believe to have been correct under the circumstances. I'm baffled by your assertion that "nothing has changed". Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you please explain what has happened since the previous TfD was closed? (I haven't been following closely since then.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I misread that. Yes, nothing has changed since the close itself, but I'm sure that you can appreciate how the changing circumstances throughout the discussion couldn't have led to a consensus. Alakzi (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that's a proper basis for a new TfD. The changing circumstances were discussed in the old one. There was ample opportunity for editors to change their positions or otherwise weigh in after the discussion at ELN had run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps there was, but editors not involved in the dispute would've been unlikely to revisit what became a very lengthy discussion. A clean slate, where deletion policy-based rationale has been provided, will reveal whether consensus exists for the deletion of this template. Alakzi (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21#Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Villages of Battagram

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to {{Battagram-Union-Councils}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Villages of Battagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Battagram-Union-Councils}} has same links. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Template:Battagram-Union-Councils or replace and delete per nom. I have more preference for my former option (redirect) since there's no harm in it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Archive list long

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge as per nom. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive list long (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Archive list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Archive list long with Template:Archive list.
The two templates serve the same purpose: creating a list of links to archive pages, but use two different Lua modules (this, by the way, is my fault, I created a new module without checking what already existed). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per rationale of nominator, ~~the template creator~~ a significant contributor to the first template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick note: I'm not the creator of Archive list long, I just recently converted it to a Lua template, which I am the creator of. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that now, Martijn. Please note that I have notified the creator of Template:Archive list of this pending TfD/TfM: [2]. While it's probably a moot point since Gurch has not edited in the last year and a half, such TfD/TfM notices should be consistently provided ~~-- even if this particular proposed "merge" is really more in the nature of a deletion~~. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. APerson (talk!) 14:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, it seems a bit redundant to have both of them if they do the same thing then.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, currently they don't do exactly the same thing, but I do believe they should. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just make it snappy: the TfD notification is totally defacing my beautiful talk page, Hoekstra. Also, it was suggested to me that I should have an archive for my archive. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This entire nomination is but a well disguised ruse to make more administrators aware of the backlog on TfD. As for archiving your archives, Jimbo has User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index. Maybe demonstrate your superiority by publicly saying you want a better archival solution than Jimbo has, sit back, and enjoy the view of our natural tendency of one-upmanship (if that isn't a word, it should be). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that this does not break Template:MonthlyArchive, which is based on Template:Archives, which is based on Template:Archive list long. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 17:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked, and I don't think it does. Are you sure? Where? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really sure it is necessary to merge them. I think that it is always better to have multiple choices for templates, and the slight differences are still reasonable to keep. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just after we got that TfD notice off our infoboxes, this discussion shows up and just about doubles the length of USRD's talk page. Haha, oh well. Personally, I think if the templates don't currently do the same thing, but the intention is that they should, the merger should wait until after that intention becomes reality. This is the same kind of discussion we were having about {{infobox road}} and {{infobox Australian road}}. TCN7JM 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand. If they do the exact same thing, there is nothing left to merge, is there? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they didn't do the same thing, then why would we be merging them? What I meant is that the modifications to the Lua module to incorporate aspects from both templates should happen before the templates are actually merged. TCN7JM 07:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. How is "making the modifications to the Lua module to incorporate aspects from both templates" something different than merging them? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—per TCN7JM and others, just do it already and get this discussion closed. :-) Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry So just to be clear here, there are no differences between functionality, style, or syntax between these two templates, such that there would be any change to how the archives look or behave on any page in which either is already implemented? Snow talk 10:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, they have slightly different parameters (archive list has more parameters), and the lua module I created for archive list long (which is currently not active due to a bug) is faster, produces less server load, and supports more archives. The two also have a different output format. The proposal is to merge them to make all parameters available for both, and to make all invocations (mainly, but not only done in {{archives}}) set an extra format parameter to choose between which output format is wanted. In {{archives}} that would depend on the auto=long option to exactly match the current behavior. For an end-user of {{archives}} there would be no visible difference other than it being a little faster (though probably not clearly noticeable) and supporting more archives (also probably not noticeable, the current limit for archive list is ~2000 which would go up to virtually unbounded). In short, the only difference would be that any direct call to {{archive list long}} would change to a call to something like {{archive list|format=long}}. The behavior of {{archives}} would be completely unchanged other than performance improvements and possibly showing archives that were not shown if they were over the old limit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the clarification, Martijn. As this issue -- that is, whether individual users of one or the other template would face meaningful formatting changes they might not be prepared for -- was my only concern, I support the merger. Snow talk 10:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom and clarification above. Having one template work faster and do everything both templates do seems like a good idea to me. Ca2james (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone who understands please comment on the extent to which harm can come from this? Is there any reason to expect that trouble with this widely-used template can happen because of a merge? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question will this include the Monthly Archive box? I have a very unique implementation on my talk page that I ~~would~~ wouldn't want breaking. I would appreciate it if you took a quick glance at the parameters I'm using and confirmed none will be lost. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @EoRdE6: I'd be happy to break that for you, if you insist. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha typos are great EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{MonthlyArchive}} transcludes {{Archives}}, which transcludes {{Archive list long}} or {{Archive list}} depending on the parameters it's called with - so the template will not be changed under this proposal, but its indirect dependencies will be. This proposal is to merge all parameters, of these two particular dependencies, so all paramters of these dependencies will be supported but - as with any edit to wikipedia - there is always a small risk that the initial merge is not initially correct. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which template will be subsumed by the other? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion would be to merge Archive list long into Archive list, because the name is better, and the number of parameters taken by Archive list is more complete, but I don't have a strong preference. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another Question I followed a link from my Talkpage to get here, and I don't understand a word of what is going on. My question however, when you guys have sorted out this conundrum, is should I do anything on my talkpage, which is presumably using one of these template (no idea which btw) to deal with Archiving, or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr: no. I can't imagine an outcome of this discussion where users of {{Archives}} would notice any negative impact (unless they are currently doing really really broken and insane things). The template would be changed to accommodate this merge so that users of the template would notice no negative difference. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.