Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Template:West Florida Argonauts football navbox[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies when there are more articles to link between. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two (2) links (w/main article as a redirect)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will be more as more years go by.... --Jpp858 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Shorter Hawks football navbox[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when there are actually pages to link between. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links (main article is a redirect)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will be more as more years go by.... --Jpp858 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpp858: That's not the point... the point is there are 11 years that could have an article, but they don't. How do we know if the future seasons will be created? The primary purpose of the navigation boxes is that they navigate. This one obviously doesn't, nor does West Florida in the section above. Until there is at least five (5) active links total in the navboxes, they should be deleted. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:R to anthroponymy page[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 2017 May 1. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox rugby league biography[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 withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox rugby league biography with Template:Infobox rugby biography.
During the course of implementing the rugby union merge, I noticed that both {{infobox rugby biography}} and {{infobox rugby league biography}} have parameters for both codes of play. In fact, "rugby bio" has more league parameters than "league bio" itself! There is no need for multiple templates to do exactly the same thing. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, there are a few subpages of "league bio" that will rather unnecessary after a merge, so they can probably be deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who edits mostly one side of the fence, could you please explain what the nature of the proposed merge would be. A scan read of the discussion from rugby fans did not see a clear direction on what is to be done, apart from a broad yes three into one makes sense, let's do it. Given that so many players have played both codes it makes sense that both sides of rugby would need to be involved in the discussion on what is being asked. Also cricket and AFL has links I believe.Fleets (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, I'm not sure what you mean. The end template would allow for backwards compatibility (in the short-term) for both templates. Given that (in my opinion) "rugby bio" is better coded (mostly because it doesn't rely on table sub-templates) the parameters and any missing information from "league bio" would be merged into "rugby bio". Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the main difference, is that the rugby bio will have to be expanded to allow for number of tries, goals and field goals - rather than just the current points total. Is someone willing to do that work? I also have a number of questions, such as why does the rugby bio treat State of Origin and City v Country separate from other representative games? Why does it include amateur and youth teams, which are usually not notable (anymore)? etc. Maybe it is better to create a combined one involving both projects, before a merger proposal. Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mattlore, I have no idea why Super / SOO / CvC / etc get their own params. It was there before I started work on the merge so I left them in, and this discussion never reached a conclusion to remove them. Might be worth re-opening that discussion, though that's not really in the scope of this proposal.
I have zero issue removing youth/amateur listings, but that also isn't relevant to this discussion.
As for the points - this discussion found that having every combination of scoring was excessive, and just the total points was required. It's never been discussed on the league template, which is probably why it's still there. I agree with that discussion's consensus - having every scoring possibility just makes things too messy, but if the templates are merged I have no issues with starting a new discussion to sort that out. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess in union points is a messier situation as they have more scoring rules (with cons and pens being worth different points). At this stage, I don't think I'd support a merge and then have discussions - I'd rather have the discussions first, so we know what we are agreeing to, or otherwise keep the two sports separate. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I also think the templates should remain separate. As @Fleets: mentioned above, a number of players also played cricket and AFL. How far do we want to take the merging? Would it not be possible to make both templates embeddable, i.e. allow for the rugby union template to include a rugby league section and vice versa? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are both embeddable, as they are both based off Template:Infobox. Verdun Scott is an example of the RL and cricket infoboxes merged together in the same page. Mattlore (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"embed" and "child" are both invalid parameters for Infobox rugby biography. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Maybe the best solution is to make them both embeddable and remove the cross-functionality. (ie remove the RL cats from the RU biography, and vice versa?) Mattlore (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, question for the above. Why again are you opposed to having both rugby codes in the same template? The way I read it, it's either "we might lose our points specificity", "it has too many irrelevant parameters", and "some rugby players also play cricket". I'm sorry, but none of those make any sense as a reason to oppose the merger of two (nearly) functionally identical templates. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My view is that the RL project might lose some functionality, as the two templates are not identical. Until I am clear on if this is the case or not (ie until I am clear on what I am supporting) then I don't want to support the merge. But, in saying that, that does not mean I am opposed to the idea of having one infobox. Mattlore (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My intention would not be to lose any functionality (trust me, it took me six hours, 1000 lines, and 1600 parameters to perform the previous merge to keep everything working). As with every other "big" merger I've witnessed and/or participated in at TFD, merging doesn't just mean hacking-and-slashing things together; as much as feasibly possible, the content of both templates is maintained.
I know the league folk (at least those posting here) love them some points stats, but quite frankly there has never been a proper discussion regarding whether to keep or ditch the points breakdown. That doesn't mean that if this merger goes through we cannot keep the points breakdown, it just means if the merger goes through that discussion needs to be held. While I personally think it's too much detail and bloats the IB, if the consensus goes the other way I'll still do my best to code it (and/or help out) and make it look good.
For me, it really just comes back to this - we have two templates that do almost the same thing (i.e. both have league and union capabilities). Why are we keeping them separate? And if they really should be separate, then we should strip all union params out of the league template, and vice versa. This half-and-half stuff is kind of silly, and the entire reason I brought it here. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, if amateurism precludes presumed notability then your streamlined infobox (with amateur fields removed) would not be used for Rugby Union subjects before 1995. In which case we would create a separate Rugby Union template to be used for those subjects meeting the General Notability criteria. Clearly in these cases there needs to be a different infobox to cater for subjects in the 100 years before 1995 going back to 1895 (when RL was created due to the ongoing amateurism of RU) and before, for cases such as Robert Seddon playing for amateur teams from the 1870s. -- Ham105 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never said I had any issue with youth/amateur, I was just saying I have strong attachment towards those parameters (and that the keeping/removing of those parameters isn't really relevant here). Your rationale makes for a good argument to keep them in, though. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does my head in when union players have a league template following a move over to union (eg - Denny Solomona) for one specific reason; they aren't called field goals in union! Would this merge actually be an improvement, would it actually make all the ru/rl pages better, or is this just one persons opinion or frustrations? MunsterFan2011 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually came up with a "real rugby union" infobox but unfortunately, i tried to get it used for 6-7 years now to no avail but yes a merge would be a silly idea cause there is no such thing as a Field Goal in union, they have one less parameter, they have "Games/Try/Goal/Field Goal" whereas union has "Caps/Try/Conversion/Penalty/DropGoal" and i have complained about why we use the league infobox for dual-code players previously but accepted it because its a much better option to use than the current "soccer" infobox (with 2 options ONLY of Caps/Goals which is beyond idiotic) which we currently use for rugby union players, so i support the merge...we have to start somewhere..--Stemoc 09:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle I support the idea of one template but I think that, certainly on the RL side there are too many unanswered (unasked?) questions about what should be in there to make the merge sensible at the moment. For example, the existence of the CvC SOO sections show a huge emphasis towards RL in the Southern hemisphere and the RL part doesn't meet the needs of representative level RL in the Northern hemisphere.
Is another option a basic biography template like {{infobox person}} with insertable child modules covering the two different codes? That way the participants in each project can tailor the module of what there needs of independently of each other. It might in the long term suggest a solution for the examples cited above of people who played other sports too. Nthep (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If League wants SOO / CvC removed from the template, then we'll remove it. If someone has a question, I'll answer it. If someone has an alternate proposal, I'll listen to it. This is a discussion, after all. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I don't fully understand this proposal but if we go through with something such as just one infobox supporting both codes, will it change the look significantly to what is used now? If it's going to look different than what they are now that would be alot of work to transfer existing articles infoboxes into a new one. Perhaps that's something your willing to do? Or am I on the wrong track? I have noticed there are a couple (maybe a few) infoboxes for rugby union bios and personally I'm only used to working with what I believe is the older one. For example: JNicol pumps out articles with the newer version. The majority of articles use the older version like I do. As for Rugby league I've only used one infobox when writing articles. I don't think I support a merger, however I will help out rewriting them if something goes through. Sirpottingmix (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirpottingmix:, there is now just one infobox for rugby union bios; Primefac did a lot of work in recent weeks getting them merged. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sirpottingmix, to answer your qeustions: the templates are fairly similar visually, but there will undoubtedly be slight changes in appearance. Yes, I'm happy to do the necessary legwork. If a merger goes through, there will initially be zero change in the existing articles; the merged template will be backwards-compatible with the current templates. At some point in the future I'd be doing a bot run to remove any "old" parameters and keep only the new ones, but again that wouldn't be immediately done. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word of warning re nicknames. They are a big part of Australian rugby league, not saying that is the case in the rest of the world or rugby union but that would be the type of things that sets an alarm bell off. For example Jonathan Davies who spent most of his career known as Jiffy, and would that disappear under this proposal?Fleets (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair call, Primefac. As per gadfium's note in that original discussion, there may be a need to rescue re-used references. -- Ham105 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I figured as much. I am sure there will be other similar conflicts with this merge, but still believe the long term benefits of doing this outweigh the short-term inconveniences. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge as per Aircorn. As long as any functionality is not lost (per above concerns). We've seen a few forks created of the original template and now it's time we fix this properly. -- Shudde talk 16:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from a RL POV I see nothing to be gained from merging these templates, nor is there any reason to change the RL template at present which is functional and fit for purpose. RL and RU are wholly separate sports and the fact that there is occasional player crossover and some issue with the RU infoboxes doesn't mean that the two should share an all-purpose infobox, or that RL should be affected in any way. If anything, I would support having entirely separate infoboxes for RL and RU, similar to what is seen on many other pages of crossover athletes or entertainers such as Jarryd Hayne, who has separate infoboxes for his RL and American Football careers, or Deion Sanders who has separate infoboxes for his American football and baseball careers. Dannys-777 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given that the WPRL community seems to be broadly understanding of the intentions, I'm still not convinced that the communities concerns have been adequately met. It appears that two separate sports are being asked to merge, largely it appears to help out the rugby union community. Whilst I don't see it as a roadblock, but it does appear that a little more needs to be done to alleviate the numerous concerns from editors who edit rugby league articles as we are being asked to accept potential errors, and gaining nothing tangible for it. Think it needs to be scoped, rationalised and properly mapped out before two wholly separate sports are integrated at the infobox level. Far too many unanswered or vague answers.Fleets (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, give me one question. Any question. Everyone keeps saying Far too many unanswered [questions], and yet I've seen no actual questions. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's just trying to be diplomatic, there are no questions as far as I'm concerned, this seems to be a simple case of the RU project overstepping its mark and attempting to alter the infobox of a different sport. And while I understand why this proposal was made and I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith, there's simply no reason for RL to have to give up its own infobox in favor of using a RU infobox or a generic 'rugby' infobox when the current RL template is perfectly fine. Dannys-777 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not driven by the rugby project, but by a neutral party. This us and them approach isn't helpful. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No "us and them approach", this was driven by the fact that there were issues with the RU infobox which needed to be rectified. There are no issues with the RL infobox and, like I said, no reason for it to be altered or for RL to be affected by this in any way. Essentially what is being proposed here is for a sport to abandon using its own infobox in favor of using the infobox of a different sport, for absolutely no reason. Dannys-777 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that members of the rugby league project here have been diplomatic and offered opinions, asked questions, such as that of nicknames, but for my part as a league editor, I do not feel enough has been done to qualm any fears, or put forward a valid rationale over why two separate sports should conjoin. No-one is poo-pooing stronger integration going forwards, but when rugby union here is still cleaning up and condensing from three to one, it seems a bridge too far to have everything rugby integrated when the league infobox largely satisfies its community. I would want a substantial document proposal that states a great many things before a perfectly fine rugby league infobox and it's individual paramaters is abandoned, for a conjoined one with another sport. I would not say that this is against rugby union people, just it makes sense to sort that out first and then set off with a firm footing, rather than merge on shifting sandss and then a horrible divorce or squabble any time any parameter is raised, removed or queried.Fleets (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleets, you make some fair points. To address some concerns from the preceeding thread, I have no "union" or "league" bias, I'm merely following the next logical step from merging two very similar templates with a potential third. I think the logical next step is to determine if union and league templates should contain their opposite members (i.e. "should they be completely 100% separate), and if so what can be done to further integrate the two.
Plastikspork and/or BU_Rob13, consider this a withdrawal of my request. I know there is some support for merging above, but it's becoming rather clear that (despite normal TFD practice) the league group want a proof-of-concept before even considering this merge. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason for the confusion here is that 'rugby' technically refers to two separate sports, RL and RU, but over the past 30 years has largely been claimed by RU with little opposition since the RL community doesn't really tend to identify with the word 'rugby' and prefers to call the sport RL or just 'league'. This now seems to have found its way to Wikipedia with RU taking ownership of the 'rugby' infobox, which I would guess was created years ago as some sort of cover-all for both sports and certainly has never been used in RL articles. Personally I would support removing the cross-functionality and displaying separate infoboxes for RL and RU since they are totally separate sports, but I understand that would probably require a lot of work to clean up historical articles (player crossover was much more common prior to RU becoming a professional sport in 1995). Dannys-777 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, there's no confusion (though I definitely prefer watching union over league), but you're right in that the main conflict comes with the fact that both extant templates contain both sports, and from my perspective it's easier to merge the two than to completely split them, but I can also see that a "clean break" for both would work. I'm pretty sure Frietjes has added functionality for both templates to be sub-modules, so I think going forward it might actually be easiest to make {{infobox rugby biography}} a container template for {{infobox rugby union biography}} and {{infobox rugby league biography}}. In other words, everyone would use the first template, but it would then call the second two as necessary. Unfortunately, that makes more work for me (nothing like creating three possible versions of two templates to propose before everyone), but I guess it's necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't really think it is necessary. As I said, there is no issue with the league infoboxes at present and there isn't any reason for them to be affected by changes on the union side of things. Once again, these are completely different sports, from your perspective I understand the logic of what you're proposing but realistically it would be like having a 'hockey' infobox with sub-modules for ice hockey and field hockey. I don't know how many articles with {{infobox rugby biography}} actually use the parameters for both union and league, but I would be happy to see it split entirely with separate infoboxes displayed for both sports when relevant, similar to the earlier example of Deion Sanders or many other crossover athletes. And then going forward we exclusively use either {{infobox rugby biography}} or {{infobox rugby union biography}} for union articles and {{infobox rugby league biography}} for league articles, displaying both in the rare cases where players play both sports at a professional level. Apart from anything else, that makes the information much clearer and easier to digest. And as I said, virtually all the league articles already use the league template, I've never come across a league article that uses {{infobox rugby biography}} and would amend it to the league template if I did. Dannys-777 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac I think it's clear that your intentions are pure and I'm happy that there is no overriding bias, but you can certainly understand my being wary and I think it's best to see exactly what people at the communities want from this as my feeling is that if we merged now it would something that we all regret. We will have numerous people saying that's not what I voted for, I didn't want that, I thought it was going to do this, I thought this would still be visible, etc. From my league perspective there are too many unknowns. I wholly support rugby unions infobox improvement drive, I'm at this stage unconvinced that merging is the answer. Perhaps a closer collaboration between the two communities would be a step in the right direction, and a broad concept document would be something that both sides of the divide could buy into.Fleets (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From there a clean-break, merge split, modules discussion can be more orderly as this discussion is pretty hard to follow.Fleets (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Northwestern State Lady Demons softball navbox[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links (used in two (2) articles)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 08:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Tetsuya Takehora[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: only one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A films by director template with only one film left. No useful navigation. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:This?[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. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 transclusions, and 3 of them unto itself or its subpages. Honestly quite pathetic. And anyways, if content needs to be linked, be bold. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_23&oldid=1138532561"