Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 4#Template:Infobox Australian place

< October 3
October 5 >

October 4

[edit]

Template:IBA recipe

[edit]

Following the merger of Template:Infobox cocktail to Template:Infobox drink this is now unused. While there is an article for International Bartenders Association I do not think this needs its own template. While it may not technically violate WP:EL, it is behind a you must be 18 or older to view this page pop up, which I would argue violates the spirit of WP:EL. Obviously nothing to stop anyone from manually adding a link to the IBA on the article page or a reference. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drinkboy recipe

[edit]

Following the merger of Template:Infobox cocktail to Template:Infobox drink this is only used in 5 articles. There is no corresponding article for Drink Boy to denote that this is in any way notable. I don't think it warrants its own template or inclusion in the External Links section of an article (obviously nothing to stop anyone from manually adding a link on the article page). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian place

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian place with Template:Infobox settlement.
It is time for this template to be converted to be a wrapper for Template:Infobox settlement. I have created a mockup at the sandbox which is visible in the testcases. This implementation will standardize the infobox to look like every other settlement infobox on Wikipedia. Note that NO other country has a custom infobox that does not use {{Infobox settlement}} as a base. A much more detailed breakdown of what was changed, what was kept and why is avaliable on the template talk page. I encourage commenters to read this breakdown first and to examine the testcases linked to above. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zackmann08 Can you reimplement those custom location and other fields using blank*_name_sec*? Or embed/module? --Joy (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: Probably, I'm not clear on what you mean though... Can you be more specific or point me towards an example in the testcases? Are you referring to the location relative to other places? For example in the first testcase where it says 207 km (129 mi) NNE of Sydney...? Is that what you mean? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you mentioned on talk, can we implement location, adjacent communities and weather box and not drop them? I appreciate the technical aspect of your change a lot, but I don't think it's a good idea to conflate those practical issues with those content issues in this one migration. It would probably be much easier to get this passed if we kept as much useful content as possible, and then had separate migration processes to figure out what to do with that. --Joy (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: that, my friend, is an EXCELLENT point. Give me a half hour. I'll do it now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy:  Partly done The temperature, rainfall and list of location data (# km from some_location) have been restored. I will not be restoring the large box at the very bottom of the current incarnation of {{Infobox Australian place}} however. I stand by my previous comment that that section by convention does not go in the infobox but in a navbox (see {{Adjacent communities}} and its 28,000+ transclusions.).
    Obviously everyone is free to edit. So if you or someone else want to overrule me and implement it in the template you are, of course, free to do so. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens if one actually puts in {{adjacent communities|border=none}} or something like that inside infobox |embed=, could that work? --Joy (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Joy tagged you in a test I did in my sandbox. Technically it works, but it really looks horrible. {{adjacent communities}} is not designed to be that small and nested in an infobox. It is really designed to be a navbox at the bottom of an article or floated in the article body. How about this, let's see if there are any other objections to this content's removal? If it appears this is going to be a sticking point, I will investigate further implementing it. Sound reasonable? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly no objections to its removal from me. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it looks like we'd need an implementation without those arrows for that to work. Maybe it's possible to just extract the Australian place's compact implementation to a separate template. This would also make it easily countable. --Joy (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy:  Done. I caved... I abstracted it out to {{Infobox Australian place/table}} to keep the code a little neater. But check the Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also made a note about local_map/mapframe mapping in the Talk page, I'm sure it's fixable relatively easily. At the same time, now that the main template logic is used, we do get automatic mapframe on other test cases, nicely demonstrating a general benefit of this change - the Australian place infoboxes get to benefit from improvements done in the settlement infoboxes in general.
    Looking at the test cases, I see no other significant issue remaining. The removal of about 8 kilobytes of extra code seems worthwhile. (Merge) --Joy (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the time and effort you are putting in to this proposal. I'm sure it is not a trivial exercise. I think it is not ready yet. I've made more detailed comments on the talk page. Show stoppers for me at the moment are:
    1. Population drawn from Wikidata
    2. Local_map using OSM
Disappointment but not showstoppers are
  1. The prominence of County if it's populated
  2. The replacement of the state name with "town" or "suburb" in the second line.
--Scott Davis Talk 11:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: follow up on the comments on the talk page. Your showstoppers are not intended consequences and are in fact bugs in the code I have written. If you can provide me with links to pages where you saw the issue I will fix it. Unfortunately the nature of Wikidata is that it is very hard to test in a testcase. It really needs to be tested on an actual article so any assistance you can provide via linking me to pages would be greatly appreciated! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the issues you raised get resolved ScottDavis? Would you now be of a mind to merge? Dgp4004 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>*:Strong Oppose Per the arguments I made last time: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 3#Template:Infobox Australian place. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My basic arguments are unlike other countries, Australian places have crucial information such as federal electorate, state electorate and local government area ETC. Note that Australia is a Federation and not a Unity state. I would actually support creating more seperate templates rather than a merge. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already voted strong oppose but this does not include information on state electorate @Zackmann08 Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere:, before voting did you you actually look at the proposed change as demonstrated at Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases? None of the information you mentioned will be removed... In fact there will be NO information lost so you argument makes no sense... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08 Actually... Uh no. My bad. I am likely going to change my vote, but first, I want to raise a concern. About the top, I do honestly think having state at the top and not having to look down to find it is better, but I do also like the suburb/town/city thing. Is it possible to have both maybe? With like state below? I know some might argue it it is just which state boundaries they are in (Like which is the capital city of their state, examples, the capital of the state Cairns is in is Brisbane, using for no reason as that is one of them I saw not the side by side one) but in my perspective, politics is truly everything. Also, your argument is right. One thing I don't agree with is not having federal and state divisions on cities, same for local government areas. I know links on the article Sydney are outdated and might be inaccurate, but for smaller cities such as Cairns or Hobart, this can be useful. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere: MAJOR kudos for admitting your mistake. Not many people on here are willing to do that. I appreciate that you are willing to consider this merger on the merits of the actual changes being made. The nice thing about the conversion is that since NO parameter names are changing or being removed, changing how/where things are displayed down the line is easy. IMHO, this infobox should follow the conventions of {{Infobox settlement}} regarding where to display the state. BUT that is absolutely something that can be looked at. Can I make a suggestion? Let us see if we can get this merger to happen at all... Then discuss improvements (I have many ideas)? As I said, since no information is lost in the process, it can very easily be moved to the top later. I just don't want to make that change based on a single editor's request. I think it warrants a larger discussion and consensus. Make sense? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere can you please click through to {{Infobox Australian place/testcases}} and check if you see all the local government area and electorate lines both at the right and at the left hand side? --Joy (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I hope you will note that the arguments against this change boil down to WP:OWN and the fact that there is a desire that no one other than people from Australia edit this infobox. Zero information has been removed so the arguments that this doesn't take into account Australia's unique features are also invalid. Finally there have been a number of comments that have pointed out minor issues or typos that have since been corrected. Despite being pinged to let them know their issue has been addressed those users have chosen not to return to comment and potentially change their opposition vote. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Few days late, but changing vote to Merge after realising no content or history will be lost. One thing that is confusing is that one example of cities shows cities federal and state divisions, and LGA'S and one does not. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere:, please feel free to add more testcases! I am not Australian and some of the intricacies of divisions are lost on me. A number of errors have already been flushed out by Australian users who corrected my naivete. Any help is greatly appreciated. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoahMusic2009/Userboxes/Falangista

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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; deleted as G4 by Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that other pro-fascist userboxen have been deleted before. See WP:HID and WP:NONAZIS. It was also previously deleted. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CCK

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, it's using a non-free flag with no valid fair use rationale for every single use. Bedivere (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Explicit, can you please review this close? The underlying template has been edited to remove the non-free flag, leaving the standard blank flag that is used for countries where there is no flag on Wikipedia yet. It seems reasonable that someone could create a self-made SVG image of this flag that was freely licensed. Deleting the template entirely would remove valid information from the articles in which it is used, and no replacement was proposed above. See {{Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands}} and its talk page for some history. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boeing model numbers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information presented here appears to be based on WP:OR, and inconclusive research at that. It uses an undefined meaning of "model number" and redirects readers to articles about aircraft with unlike model numbers (e.g., "733" links to Boeing 2707). Three or more blue links often point to a single article. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond to the perceived problems directly as well. I'm not sure what you mean by undefined meaning of "model number", as the model numbers in question are the ones assigned by Boeing. This inevitably leads to cases where there are multiple links to articles covering multiple models, but there's not much that can realistically be done about that while keeping the entries in sequential order. Also, in the case of "733" linking to Boeing 2707, it's because the Boeing Model 733 is covered in the article.
That said, you do otherwise make a good point about WP:OR, but that should be an easy fix and doesn't warrant deletion. - ZLEA TǀC 19:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is strongly against deletion, that's OK. What follows is not further argument for deletion. We are in agreement about WP:OR being a concern, but I don't understand how to fix that with regard to a template. What does the easy fix look like? Is the topic notable enough for its own article, "Boeing aircraft model numbers"? Maybe that's a conversation for the template talk page. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 01:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's run down the 'issues' raised here. based on OR? I'm pretty sure every one of these aircraft can be verified through reliable sources. undefined meaning of "model number? What? These are Boeing's, well, model numbers. How else do you 'define' "model number"? redirects readers to articles about aircraft with unlike model numbers because multiple model numbers were assigned to some types covered in a single article. To use the example given - Boeing 2707 states Boeing began small-scale SST studies in 1952...It proposed a variety of alternative designs, all under the name Model 733. Three or more blue links often point to a single article Yes, because that's how redirects work when multiple topics that are individually sub-notable combine to form a notable topic, or are related to a notable topic and thus are covered in that notable topic's article. Overall this is, IMHO, a shockingly misinformed nomination and should be withdrawn by the nominator. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2025 in Uzbekistani football

[edit]

Mostly redlink Navbox with no main article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]