Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14

Chang Thailand Slammers templates

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The result of the discussion was delete; an outdated and mostly-redlinked navbox set. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chang Thailand Slammers current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Thailand Slammers current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Chang Thailand Slammers have been renamed to Hi-Tech Bangkok City and a template for their current roster is already made. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Additionally, they are mostly all red links anyway.—Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 20 November 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).

Template:Talk archive

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. (non-admin closure) Although one or two weak reasons can be seen, the opposition to a merger is unanimous. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Talk archive navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Talk archive with Template:Talk archive navigation.
Very similar templates, with no obvious requirement for more than one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Sure. Why not? They seem almost identical. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason for having a separate template is because the navigation template not only provides navigation, but requires a very specific formatting for archive page titles. Applying that to an archive page without the appropriate formatting will break the template. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. When that specific format is not in place, these two act exactly similar. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the merged template navigation can be turned off or allows the naming convention to be specified. The navigation from {{Talk archive navigation}} requires a specific naming convention that not all talk pages follow. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Archive navigation templates. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per the discussion referenced by the previous poster. There are necessary reasons for keeping these templates separate. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I closed that discussion (and later participated in it when it was re-opened), and I do not see the reason you say exists. That proposal was ill-conceived; this proposal is not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I am aware of that it has been proposed to merge these templates in some form or other. There are users who find the functionality of tan very useful and get concerned when there is discussion that may in some form reduce that functionality. If a proposal was clear as to what is intended, and an awareness of the problems involved in merging the templates, and how those problems would be overcome, then I suspect the proposal would have more success. As it stands this proposal gives no adequate explanation for the merger, and seems to miss that the templates have subtle but telling differences. As the proposal stands it is unclear what is intended, so I am opposed. With greater clarity, and a clear explanation of what functionality is intended to remain, and an explanation of how the templates are to be successfully merged, I think I would be more likely to support. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a proposal to merge tow templates; it is not a proposal to remove any of their functionality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some editors use tan at the TOPs of archive pages and just ta at the BOTTOMs. The navigation is useful at the TOP, but unnecessary at the BOTTOM. So, once again, tan the tops and just ta the bottoms! Paine 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People might want to use one or the other to add customisation. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above editors and their reasons, which I'd also personally thought of before noting that others had listed them down previously. Alex|The|Whovian 06:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved here? Seems like a waste of time. Has the proposer prepared a sandbox version of the proposed merged template? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Unfortunately, it appears that people are opposing, after and with no regard to Codename Lisa's comment time-stamped "17:54, 15 November 2015". I trust that whoever closes this will take that into account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One barely-detailed support concerning a discussion that is not this one does not force nor require all of us to support it as well. We all have our own views, no matter what other people's views are. Alex|The|Whovian 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strawman; see below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All she says is, "Sure. Why not? They seem almost identical." and "this proposal is not...ill-conceived". No explanation as to why she thinks it's not ill-conceived. I don't know anything about any previous discussion, or how that might relate to this. These templates don't seem identical to me. {{Talk archive navigation}} uses Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator, while {{Talk archive}} does not. That seems like a significant difference. See how in my talk archive, {{Talk archive navigation}} has links to the previous and next archive. If I change it to {{Talk archive}}, those navigation links disappear. That's the difference. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Wbm1058: That's true; I mean what you say about me. I regard sufficient similarity in purpose and output a valid ground for considering the merger, although I factor in additional problems like TCO. Mind you, "Merger" ≠ "Delete one and redirect". As for "That proposal was ill-conceived; this proposal is not", yes, this is very weak, but I said it in response to the already-much-weaker "there was a semblance of discussion before" argument. But overall, I am not trying hard here. I did what I could last time. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strawman; the comment you're quoting is not the one to which I referred. Likewise, no one has claimed that the templates are "identical" - another strawman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, that comment betrays your trademark attitude in TfD of "I'm right, you're wrong, closers, you should just listen to me". That's not how it works, as demonstrated here. If the overwhelming opposition continues the discussion will not be able to support a merge result. BethNaught (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please discuss the topic, and avoid making personal attacks such as the above. You have failed to refute the point made by CodenameLisa; and your "overwhelming opposition" assertion is bogus; this is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yet again, really? Talk archive is meant for situations where navigation is not necessary or desired, Talk archive navigation is for when it is. Note the navigation elements only appear in the latter when viewed transcluded. Therefore the nominator's rationale "very similar templates" is not true. BethNaught (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet again you do not establish any argument as to why the two very similar templates could not be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In your opinion", which is generally respected. In this case since you opened this merge discussion, it's more important for you to establish an argument as to why these two templates should be merged. I oppose the merge because it's unnecessary and because you have not established an argument that the merge is necessary. Be prosperous! Paine 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not "in my opinion", but apparent from basic reading comprehension. If you believe that to be wrong, please highlight the argument BN made to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My secret to wisdom: Never state (nor highlight) the obvious. Paine 23:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per WP:PERENNIAL. How come every time I go to archive my user talk page, I see the notice of another TfD? (That is a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it.) This is a solution in search of a problem, and I advise the editors who are so concerned about it to get another hobby. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above that WP:PERENNIAL comes into play here. If you want to merge these templates, then convince users to favor one template over the other and make the switch beforehand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tryptofish. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus of this discussion is quite clearly for opposing the original request for merging, and should be closed as such as soon as possible. Alex|The|Whovian 17:51, 23 November 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).

Template:List of scandals in Malaysia

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 relist to Nov 21. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of scandals in Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a helpful template. There are seven links to sub-articles, none of which exist. The main article (List of scandals in Malaysia) contains fewer than 10 items, so it seems unlikely they'll need to be created any time soon. Relentlessly (talk) 18:52, 14 November 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).

Template:Bataan Radio

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) Primefac (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bataan Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete. Does not provide useful navigation; insufficient links. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sixth o f March 11:46, 20 November 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).

Template:American Sinosceptic

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. Unused even by creator and potentially divisive. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Sinosceptic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't know why this template was created. I thought it should be nominated first because it seemed a bit controversial. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 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).

Template:Arabenglnotes

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. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template looks more like an article than a template. Not sure whether it'll be good to convert it to an article or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was used, subst'd, as a footnote or section on numerous list articles of loanwords (e.g., List of English words of Arabic origin (T-Z)). I created the article, and used it quite often when I was working on those lists, but as far as I know it's not been used by anyone since and - to be honest - I'd forgotten all about it. If it's no longer being used in that way, I've no objection to its deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 14 November 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).