The result of the discussion was convert to Lua to avoid thousands of smaller templates, after which they can all be deleted. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a follow-up on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 6#Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB from 4 1/2 years ago.
I have only tagged this one template, as it would be a bit ridiculous to tag 12,000 templates in one go.
My reasoning from four years ago:
"This is a combined deletion nomination for ca. 12,00010,000 templates, of which I have only tagged one. These templates are 5895 templates in
Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in
Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in
Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in
Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates. These were all created in May and June 2010, and none of them are used. I have asked about them at
User talk:Rich Farmbrough#ISO 3166 templates, and he intends to use them in infoboxes. However, no actual examples of where they may be used have been given, and it is hard to see what purpose this many templates can have. For maintainability and user-friendliness, a template like
Template:CountryAbbr, which is used to add country or region codes to the coordinates, is much more useful and maintainable. E.g. on an article like
Weser, the cooridnates at the top right contain the region DE-HB. This is done automatically, based on the fields in the infobox. The same code could be generated through
Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB, but this would mean that instead of one smart template that tackles all these codes (or a small number of such templates, if it would get too complex for one), we have an individual template for each and every code. For automatisation and maintenance, this is worse. Having one template per country, with the regions parametrised, could be a reasonable solution. I fail to see though how these 12,000 templates will reduce any workload or make life any easier. "
The only change is that we are now four years further on, and as far as I could see, these are still not used (the only experimental use they had was in Template:Infobox bathhouse, which has since been redirected). Keeping 12,000 unused templates around for five years seems like overkill. Fram ( talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. This is now a content discussion which can be carried out at the talk page. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Per Reasons for deletion #2: the navbox is redundant to better-designed navboxes. It includes geological divisions throughout the history of Earth down to a fine scale, and there is little reason to expect that users will want to navigate between most of them. For example: If someone is looking at Zanclean (5.3 - 3.6 Mya), will they suddenly have the urge to go to Rhyacian (2300 - 2050 Mya)? Or even Danian (61.6-66.0 Mya)? Zanclean already has two much more sensible navboxes: {{ Neogene graphical timeline}} and {{ Neogene Footer}} (it probably doesn't need both). Going up the scale, Neogene has the same two navboxes and also shares {{ Phanerozoic eon}} with Cenozoic. Cenozoic also has {{ Cenozoic graphical timeline}}; in principle, this could also be shared with Neogene. And Phanerozoic has {{ Eons graphical timeline}}. I don't think there is any article where this template would be useful - not even the main article, Geologic time scale, where there already are tables of time divisions. RockMagnetist( talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
and
and
This template is far too large to be useful in navigation. Per RockMagnetist's argument, having a navbox is a separate issue from trying to make geological time comprehensible to laymen.
If editors think that Geological time scale is too hard to read as an information source, how about adding collapsiblity to the big table, somehow? I think that would really help our readers. — hike395 ( talk) 12:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
RockMagnetist, Look2See1, Kevmin: Question: I went through and dramatically simplified this navbox: a draft is at User:Hike395/sandbox. It now fits on one screen. How do other editors feel about replacing the current navbox with this proposed one, and Keeping it? — hike395 ( talk) 13:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Question: In the Phanerozoic, the periods are now listed from latest to earliest, left-to-right. Is this confusing to the readers? Won't they expect time to flow forward left-to-right? Not sure what to do: please advise. — hike395 ( talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was convert to Lua to avoid thousands of smaller templates, after which they can all be deleted. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a follow-up on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 6#Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB from 4 1/2 years ago.
I have only tagged this one template, as it would be a bit ridiculous to tag 12,000 templates in one go.
My reasoning from four years ago:
"This is a combined deletion nomination for ca. 12,00010,000 templates, of which I have only tagged one. These templates are 5895 templates in
Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in
Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in
Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in
Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates. These were all created in May and June 2010, and none of them are used. I have asked about them at
User talk:Rich Farmbrough#ISO 3166 templates, and he intends to use them in infoboxes. However, no actual examples of where they may be used have been given, and it is hard to see what purpose this many templates can have. For maintainability and user-friendliness, a template like
Template:CountryAbbr, which is used to add country or region codes to the coordinates, is much more useful and maintainable. E.g. on an article like
Weser, the cooridnates at the top right contain the region DE-HB. This is done automatically, based on the fields in the infobox. The same code could be generated through
Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB, but this would mean that instead of one smart template that tackles all these codes (or a small number of such templates, if it would get too complex for one), we have an individual template for each and every code. For automatisation and maintenance, this is worse. Having one template per country, with the regions parametrised, could be a reasonable solution. I fail to see though how these 12,000 templates will reduce any workload or make life any easier. "
The only change is that we are now four years further on, and as far as I could see, these are still not used (the only experimental use they had was in Template:Infobox bathhouse, which has since been redirected). Keeping 12,000 unused templates around for five years seems like overkill. Fram ( talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. This is now a content discussion which can be carried out at the talk page. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Per Reasons for deletion #2: the navbox is redundant to better-designed navboxes. It includes geological divisions throughout the history of Earth down to a fine scale, and there is little reason to expect that users will want to navigate between most of them. For example: If someone is looking at Zanclean (5.3 - 3.6 Mya), will they suddenly have the urge to go to Rhyacian (2300 - 2050 Mya)? Or even Danian (61.6-66.0 Mya)? Zanclean already has two much more sensible navboxes: {{ Neogene graphical timeline}} and {{ Neogene Footer}} (it probably doesn't need both). Going up the scale, Neogene has the same two navboxes and also shares {{ Phanerozoic eon}} with Cenozoic. Cenozoic also has {{ Cenozoic graphical timeline}}; in principle, this could also be shared with Neogene. And Phanerozoic has {{ Eons graphical timeline}}. I don't think there is any article where this template would be useful - not even the main article, Geologic time scale, where there already are tables of time divisions. RockMagnetist( talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
and
and
This template is far too large to be useful in navigation. Per RockMagnetist's argument, having a navbox is a separate issue from trying to make geological time comprehensible to laymen.
If editors think that Geological time scale is too hard to read as an information source, how about adding collapsiblity to the big table, somehow? I think that would really help our readers. — hike395 ( talk) 12:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
RockMagnetist, Look2See1, Kevmin: Question: I went through and dramatically simplified this navbox: a draft is at User:Hike395/sandbox. It now fits on one screen. How do other editors feel about replacing the current navbox with this proposed one, and Keeping it? — hike395 ( talk) 13:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Question: In the Phanerozoic, the periods are now listed from latest to earliest, left-to-right. Is this confusing to the readers? Won't they expect time to flow forward left-to-right? Not sure what to do: please advise. — hike395 ( talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)