Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

[edit]

Template:User qwh-0

[edit]
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 Wrong venue. I will transfer this discussion to WP:MfD, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User qwh-0. @BrownHairedGirl: userbox should go to WP:MfD (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless templates which indicate a user's lack of any ability to communicate in the given language.

Even the most proficient linguist has skills in at best a few dozen of the world's hundreds of languages, so fr any given user, the list of zero-ability languages will have hundreds of entries. Therefore marking those languages in which a user has zero skills is as pointless as marking all the towns in which they don not live, or the subjects in which they do not have a university degree.

Sadly, this pointlessness has malign effects. Because of the way the Babel system works, these templates populate eponymous categories: e.g. {{User ckb-0}} populates Category:User ckb-0.

Such categories have been repeatedly deleted at WP:CFD, because do nothing to assist collaboration between users; see an incomplete list at WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians_by_0-level_language_knowledge. The 6 categories populated by these 6 templates have been nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 27#Category:User_qwh-0. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really think editors are going to all of a sudden start adding thousands of userboxes for all the languages they don't speak: from what I've seen, these template are used by people who extensively edit in areas where knowledge of a given language may be presumed, for example the first template is used by the main contributor to the corresponding language article. These are then useful as a sort of disclaimer ("I edit extensively about X, but be warned that I don't speak a word of the language"). Hence keep, unless evidence is given of actual harm. And btw, weren't userboxes meant to be discussed at WP:MFD? – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: The harm caused by these templates is that they impose a burden on those who maintain categories, without any sign of apparent user benefit. These are all templates for small minority languages, where it is exceptionally unlikely that anyone would presume knowledge of the language.
Only two of these templates are in use at all; both on User:Heval7884, where there are so many other userboxes that nobody is likely to find these ones. They are just decoration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last template for example is for the Central Kurdish language and it's used by an editor who edits Kurdistan-related articles and who professes (via another userbox) a Kurdish identity, so it's not really far-fetched to assume they might speak the language. These templates do serve a clear purpose. there appear to be about 340 such userbox templates [1], and some of them like {{User es-0}} or {{User ja-0}} have hundreds of transclusions. As for the categories they generate, I see why they might not be needed: it makes sense to categorise users with possession of specific competences, but probably not so much ones without. If the presence of this categories really is a maintenance burden, then the solution is to suppresss them by tweaking the templates (either the individual ones or the metatemplate they use). – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2018 (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:Cellar Darling

[edit]
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) ∯WBGconverse 11:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article on one band member and one album. This navbox provides no additional navigational benefit. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:22, 27 November 2018 (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:Virusbox

[edit]
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) ∯WBGconverse 11:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template makes updating virus classification much harder than it ought to be. It is confusing to new editors who will not know how to make changes to the taxonomy of viruses, which actually changes quite often. The template is not widely used. It should be manually replaced with Template:Taxobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This template has been discussed and consensus was achieved. Ruslik's issues with Template:Virusbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) pertain to all of the templates within the established Automated taxobox system which is now the preferred option for articles on taxa. Reverting to 'manual' taxoboxes is against consensus. I see no reason why viruses should be singled out from the other taxoboxes. --Nessie (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – this template is part of the family of automated taxobox templates, which, as NessieVL notes, has consensus as the preferred option in a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life. The proposer makes exactly the wrong point: automated taxoboxes are most useful when taxonomy changes often, because a single change at a taxonomy template automatically changes taxoboxes in articles on all lower-ranked taxa that use the automated taxoboxes. It's thus much easier to keep taxoboxes up to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Is a separate template needed? All it seems to do is add |virus = true. Automatic taxobox could detect that it was the virus from the heirarchy, the same way it discriminates between animals and plants, so that the header colours, "Virus classification" caption and italics are handled. There is no seperate Animalbox or Plantbox. Is there a reason why it couldn't be merged into the Automatic taxobox (and Speciesbox)?   Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - IIRC, the main issue is the formatting. All viral taxa are italicised, not just genus and species. Also, there are no binomials and genus names often aren't part of the species names, so display for Sulfolobus islandicus rod-shaped virus 2 in the Rudivirus genus for example would be a mess.--Nessie (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you change the virusbox to automatic taxobox in Rudivirus the only difference is the lack of italicisation of the order and family. The type genus is already italicised, although presumably only the first two terms should be. The automatic taxobox system already recognises that the taxon is a virus (hence the header colour) so the only changeto make them the same would be to italicise all taxa below virus group. At the moment only eight taxa use virusbox, so now might be a good time just to switch to automatic taxobox with the appropriate changes.   Jts1882 | talk  16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my example, the Sulfolobus islandicus rod-shaped virus 2 page would be have the issue, as genus-level taxoboxes do not show binomials (though {{Automatic taxobox}} still does not italicize higher taxa for viruses). And ICTV says the whole viral species name is in italics, even if it includes a host taxa name in it. In any event, one could theoretically combine {{Speciesbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}}, {{Infraspeciesbox}}, {{Hybridbox}}, {{Ichnobox}}, {{Virusbox}}, and {{Oobox}} into {{Automatic taxobox}}, but I think that would be a big unwieldy mess. Each of these have separate formatting issues, and the consensus was to separate them. Virusbox has only been around since 7 October 2018‎, and I think many of the folks at WikiProject Viruses were waiting for the dust to settle on the ICTV 2018 updates. --Nessie (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, species are the real problem. Hazara orthonairovirus is another example. {{Automatic taxobox}} and particularly {{Speciesbox}} don't deal with virus species. I would personally prefer to keep the peculiarities of this group isolated, and remove the layers of complexity in the standard automated taxobox system which deal with viruses; otherwise the tail is very much wagging the dog in terms of creating hard-to-maintain code. Incidentally, Virusbox has been around since 2011, but was at one time non-functional. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Virusbox is a necessary complement to Speciesbox/Automatic taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Virusbox template may not be "widely used", but is still presently in use by at least eight current virus articles. Unless consensus were to develop that would totally prohibit its use, it should be kept until it can be either re-written to be free of faults or Automatic taxobox can be adapted to display viruses correctly. Loopy30 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not changing my earlier keep, but actually Virusbox doesn't work correctly at present – I will post more at Template talk:Virusbox. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC) I have now updated Virusbox so that it uses the newer Lua code to traverse taxonomy templates. It needs a little more work to fix the automatic italicization of taxobox names and article titles, but it's now firmly part of the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only eight virus articles currently use the automatic taxobox system and this template needs to be kept and updated so that more virus articles can use the automatic taxobox system, which ultimately helps keep wikipedia more consistent and up to date.   Jts1882 | talk  07:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased keep, since I both developed (by request) and restored it (by recent popular request and apparent consensus). Since it looks like the only opposition so far is the nominee, I'd suggest that editor seek out assistance learning how to use the new code. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is used, is useful, is part of a system, is already approved in a consensus discussion by people who are actually going to use it. However, it needs to be checked that the claim "The parameters are generally the same as Template:Automatic taxobox, with some changes for viral taxonomy" is actually true. I found another these (maybe it was species box, I forget) which made a similar claim/instruction, but was actually using the parameters of {{Taxobox}} not {{Automatic taxobox}}. That consequently produced errors in mainspace. I think it mostly has to do with what "status" means (conservation versus classification). That conflict needs to be fixed across all of these so that |status= and derived parameters all mean the same thing, and that the other kind of status has a consistent more specific name across all of them (or all that support it; I don't think conservation status applies to viruses and bacteria and such). But, I did not check the template parameter-by-parameter and there may be other incompatibilities between the template and (more importantly) between a template and the actual documentation that the template's page is pointing to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 5 December 2018 (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:Sarah Harding

[edit]
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 relisted on 2018 December 5. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2018 (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:Mona

[edit]
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) ∯WBGconverse 11:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All singles redirect to the album, so nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 15:43, 27 November 2018 (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:K Koke

[edit]
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) ∯WBGconverse 11:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --woodensuperman 13:29, 27 November 2018 (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:Stevie Appleton

[edit]
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) ∯WBGconverse 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation --woodensuperman 13:27, 27 November 2018 (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:Zarif

[edit]
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 relisted on 2018 December 5. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:31, 5 December 2018 (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:Kimberly Wyatt

[edit]
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 relisted on 2018 December 5. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:31, 5 December 2018 (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:Tnc

[edit]
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. With the proviso, that cymru.lass' proposal (which don't seem to have any downside) be executed. And, the nominator is asked to refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another redundant and un-needed template created by BrandonXLF. Basic copy of {{tlx}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The argument that this template is redundant of Template:Tlx is wrong. BrandonXLF is right that it fills a gap in the template-linking templates. There is a clear good-faith basis for this template to have been created, so I don't understand Zackmann08's claim that BrandonXLF was blocked for creating this template, nor can I find any evidence that the creation of this template was the reason he was blocked. I actually think it's very unfair that it was even mentioned here at all, since it has nothing to do with the merits of this template. All that being said, I do think the template should be deleted. Even though it does fill that hole in the table of template-linking templates, the template is not being used as of now, and I question whether there will be any need. I've personally been skeptical of {{tlx}}, which I understand exists to make it easier to click single-character-named templates, and which I think is a dubious purpose, and which I see used far more often outside the purpose for which it was intended. --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we delete this template, and edit {{tlx}} to add a |linkbraces=yes parameter (or something similarly named) to include the linking of the curly braces? That seems to solve most of the arguments here... cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with |linkbraces=yes parameter in {{tlx}}. Maybe create a {{tlx}} wrapper template at {{tnc}} (or whatever) to fill the gap in the chart. This is not the first time we've been over this (in fact, I filled that gap myself once, only to have it TfDed, many years ago). People are going to continue seeing the gap and continue filling it. We just don't need a pile of redundant, complex code to fill it, just a simple wrapper that passes parameters. PS: I agree that the attempt to personalize this and make it into some kind of bogus disciplinary matter was highly inappropriate. See WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 5 December 2018 (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:Planetbox begin

[edit]
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 to merge all the templates to Template:Infobox planet. Pretty much SMcCandlish, as to weighing the opposition. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me that this is redundant to {{Infobox planet}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he following templates would also need to be deleted/merged into {{Infobox planet}}
{{Planetbox begin}}
{{Planetbox image}}
{{Planetbox star}}
{{Planetbox star detail}}
{{Planetbox separation}}
{{Planetbox orbit}}
{{Planetbox character}}
{{Planetbox discovery}}
{{Planetbox catalog}}
{{Planetbox reference}}
{{Planetbox end}}
@Rfassbind: Good job that we are doing a proper analysis, then. Do you have an example of a parameter where "the label is the same, but linkage on that label differs"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, |Discovery site= links to MPC's List of observatory codes in one template; while in the other, it does not. It comes right after the first displayed item in {{Infobox planet}}, "Discovered by", which is basically the same case, as it links to List of minor planet discoverers. You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done. Rfassbind – talk 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: can we try to keep this civil? People come to this discussion from different points of view. The point of the discussion is for everyone to have a chance to raise concerns. You have raised some great concerns but the comment that You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done. doesn't help anything and frankly makes your otherwise constructive comments less valued. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was not meant as a personal attack, but rather as a concise opposition to the believe that this discussion would somehow be suffice to come to an informed conclusion by asking everyone to skip through 200 or so parameters and cast a vote that potentially affects 1,000 articles without having a proper analysis as a basis. I sincerely apologize if I failed in that attempt. Rfassbind – talk 02:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: I didn't take it as a personal attack. Just saying lets try to keep it civil. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done" And you wouldn't have said that if you'd thought about the difference between "done", and the word I used, "doing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that last sentence was unfortunate. I suggest to focus on the proposal, not on semantics, to give the discussion at least the appearance, that some kind of superficial analysis has been is being done. Rfassbind – talk 21:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I listed all documented parameters for exoplanets. Parameters marked with a Green tickY may be mapped to a corresponding counterpart in {{Infobox planet}}, even if the label or the linkage on the label still differs. The majority (approx. 50 parameters), however, do not seem to be redundant and would have to be added. This would increase the parameter count in {{Infobox planet}} from 113 to approx. 165. To anyone: please feel free to change Green tickY→Red XN or Red XN→Green tickY, if you think I made a mistake in my assessment. Just put a note on the bottom of the list. Rfassbind – talk 02:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
proper analysis: redundancy check of extra solar parameters
  1. Red XN Infobox caption header: Exoplanet | List of exoplanets
  2. Green tickY |name= Planet name
  3. Green tickY |image= image link (the thumbing is automatically set at 300px)
  4. Green tickY |caption= caption; required
  5. Red XN |star= name of planet's star
  6. Red XN |constell= planet's constellation
  7. Red XN |RA= right ascension of planet's star
  8. Red XN |DEC= declination of planet's star
  9. Red XN |app_mag= apparent magnitude of planet's star
  10. Red XN |dist_ly= planet's distance from Earth in light years
  11. Red XN |dist_pc= planet's distance from Earth in parsecs
  12. Red XN |class= spectral type of planet's star
  13. Red XN |mass= mass of planet's star in solar masses
  14. Red XN |radius= radius of planet's star in solar radii
  15. Red XN |temperature= temperature of planet's star in kelvins
  16. Red XN |metallicity= metal content of planet's star relative to our sun in [Fe/H]
  17. Red XN |age= age of planet's star in gigayears
  18. Red XN |position_angle= position angle, in degrees
  19. Green tickY |epoch= Epoch of observation
  20. Red XN |separation_mas= observed separation, in milliarcseconds (mas)
  21. Red XN |separation= observed separation, in astronomical units (AU)
  22. Red XN |t_approach= time of closest approach of source to lens system (Julian date, JD)
  23. Red XN |alpha= angle between source trajectory and lens system axis (degrees)
  24. Green tickY |epoch= epoch the orbit is valid for
  25. Green tickY |semimajor= semimajor axis, in astronomical units (AU)
  26. Red XN |semimajor_gm= semimajor axis, in gigameters (Gm) (optional)
  27. Red XN |semimajor_mas= semimajor axis in milliarcseconds (mas) (optional)
  28. Green tickY |periastron= periastron in astronomical units (AU)
  29. Red XN |periastron_gm= periastron in gigameters (Gm) (optional)
  30. Green tickY |apastron= apastron in astronomical units (AU)
  31. Red XN |apastron_gm= apastron in gigameters (Gm) (optional)
  32. Green tickY |eccentricity= orbital eccentricity
  33. Green tickY |period= orbital period in days (optional, can use period_year instead)
  34. Red XN |period_year= orbital period in years (optional, can use period instead)
  35. Red XN |period_hour= orbital period in hours (optional, can use period instead)
  36. Green tickY |speed= orbital speed in kilometers per second (km/s)
  37. Green tickY |inclination= orbital inclination, in degrees
  38. Red XN |star_inclination= planet's inclination relative to host star's equator, in degrees
  39. Green tickY |node= longitude of the node, in degrees
  40. Green tickY |arg_peri= argument of periastron, in degrees
  41. Green tickY |mean_anomaly= mean anomaly, in degrees (always specify epoch when using this field, which should only be used for dynamical fits)
  42. Green tickY |mean_longitude= mean longitude, in degrees (always specify epoch when using this field, which should only be used for dynamical fits)
  43. Green tickY |t_peri= time of periastron (Julian date, JD; can use t_peri_no_jd instead)
  44. Red XN |t_peri_no_jd= time of periastron (no calendar specified; can use t_peri instead)
  45. Red XN |t_transit= time of transit (Julian date, JD; can use t_transit_no_jd instead)
  46. Red XN |t_transit_no_jd= time of transit (no calendar specified; can use t_transit instead)
  47. Red XN |t_eclipse= time of eclipse (Julian date, JD; can use t_eclipse_no_jd instead)
  48. Red XN |t_eclipse_no_jd= time of eclipse (no calendar specified; can use t_eclipse instead)
  49. Red XN |t_conj= time of conjunction (Julian date, JD; can use t_conj_no_jd instead)
  50. Red XN |t_conj_no_jd= time of conjunction (no calendar specified; can use t_conj instead)
  51. Red XN |semi-amp= velocity semi-amplitude (m/s); this is a measurement of the central star's velocity changes
  52. Green tickY |mass= true mass in multiples of Jupiter's mass (optional)
  53. Red XN |mass_earth= true mass in multiples of Earth's mass (optional)
  54. Red XN |minimum_mass= minimum mass in multiples of Jupiter's mass (optional)
  55. Red XN |minimum_mass_earth= minimum mass in multiples of Earth's mass (optional)
  56. Red XN |maximum_mass= mass upper bound in multiples of Jupiter's mass (optional)
  57. Red XN |maximum_mass_earth= mass upper bound in multiples of Earth's mass (optional)
  58. Green tickY |radius= radius in multiples of Jupiter's radius (optional)
  59. Red XN |radius_earth= radius in multiples of Earth's radius (optional)
  60. Red XN |radius_megameter= radius in megameters (optional)
  61. Green tickY |density= average density in kg/m^3 (SI)
  62. Red XN |density_cgs= average density in g/cm^3 (CGS)
  63. Red XN |stellar_flux= the amount of starlight the planet receives
  64. Red XN |stellar_flux_max= the amount of maximum starlight the planet receives
  65. Red XN |stellar_flux_min= the amount of minimum starlight the planet receives
  66. Red XN |bond_albedo= the amount of starlight reflected from the planet and its atmosphere
  67. Green tickY |geometric_albedo= geometric albedo of the planet
  68. Green tickY |rotation_period= rotation period of the planet
  69. Green tickY |gravity= surface gravity in m/s²
  70. Red XN |gravity_earth= surface gravity in multiples of Earth's surface gravity
  71. Green tickY |temperature= temperature in K, C, or F
  72. Green tickY |discovery_date= discovery date
  73. Green tickY |discoverers= discoverers
  74. Red XN |discovery_method= method used to discover the planet
  75. Red XN |detection_methods= subsequent methods the planet has been detected
  76. Green tickY |discovery_site= observatory where discovery was made
  77. Red XN |discovery_status= discovery status: Published/Confirmed/Unpublished/Retracted
  78. Green tickY |names= Other widely used names for planet
  79. Red XN |star= Designation of primary star of extrasolar planet, as used in the EPE
  80. Red XN |planet= Letter of planet (b, c, d, ...), as used in the EPE; default is b
  81. Red XN |simbad= Designation used in SIMBAD, if different from EPE
  82. Red XN |exoarchive= Designation used in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, if different from EPE
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: thank you for the super detailed analysis!!! So with that in mind, let me ask you (since you did that analysis and objected before). If all those parameters were merged, I.E. NO information were lost, would you support the merger? To be clear, a "merge" vote here, doesn't me "I support merging it right no with no changes". It really means "I think these two templates can/should be merged into one template". From there it would go to the Holding cell while we merge it. My argument here is that I don't think it makes sense to have 2 different templates. I'm also not a fan of the series of templates and would rather have one unified infobox. That being said, I don't want to remove any information. I'd be more than happy to take the lead in merging all the parameters. Perhaps we could start with a proof of concept? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks again for the in depth analysis. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the parent star parameters except |star= should not be included. The infobox is about the planet, not about the star. If you want to know more about the star, click the link and go to its article. No need to duplicate information. That means removing 11 parameters: |RA=, |DEC=, |app_mag=, |dist_ly=, |dist_pc=, |class=, |mass=, |radius=, |temperature=, |metallicity= and |age=. Additionally, |constell= which is part of that specific group, should be kept. The infobox caption header should also be removed, that isn't the place for something like that. The reference section should also be moved out and placed in a normal MoS External links section. That means removing 4 parameters: |star=, |planet=, |simbad= and |exoarchive=. So that is a total of 16 parameters that don't need to be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gonnym here. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: lets see what the final result of this TFD is, but I have a rough idea in my head for how to proceed. Assuming this tfd passes, I'll take the lead in implementing it and would love to lean on you for checking of my work and making sure I don't miss anything. :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, parameter |dist_ly= can't be dropped, as the planet's distance from Earth is given in the first sentence of any extra solar article I checked. Other parent-star parameters will need to be kept or otherwise re-added. The infobox is a summary of the article. If that includes information about the star, then this can't be just ignored for the sake of a less excruciating template merger. Rfassbind – talk 01:40, 1 December 2018 (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 beach

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox beach with Template:Infobox landform.
A beach is a type of landform. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: |beach_number=, is used by just 17 of the 176 articles using the template; |patrolled_by= by 24. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. No one is proposing to recreate Geobox, or anything like it. Features other than beaches are patrolled and have length (the 'landform' infobox already has |length=), and have reference numbers. |last= and |next= should be discarded, because they refer to sequences in catalogues, not physical relationships. None of the parameters in the 'beach' templates are actually unique to beaches. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my oppose: |beach_number=, |hazard_rating=, |patrolled_by= are all beach-related and do not belong in {{Infobox landform}}. If we convert |beach_number= to |number=, it will be too vague to be useful. —hike395 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were not beach related; all the parameters are, I said they are not unique to beaches. Any of them, without the utterly redundant "beach" prefix, can apply to other types of land-form. |beach_number= is itself vague, but can - if kept - be renamed to |reference_number=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pigsonthewing (including his rebuttal of attempted refutation). It would actually add useful features to the target template, like reference numbers, patrol information, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 5 December 2018 (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:WNBA Playoffs Revised summary

[edit]
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 relisted on 2018 December 5. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 11:45, 5 December 2018 (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/2018_November_27&oldid=1126875405"