mic_none

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_2

August 2[edit]

Template:INFOBOX INDCONST[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 August 9. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Philippine name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Merge proposal has failed to gain traction. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Template:Philippine name with Template:Family name hatnote.
to avoid confusion regarding the differences between the Philippine and the Portuguese name templates. Also, there's an alternate template written on my User:RenRen070193/sandbox and I tried to replace the current one but I was prohibited by the administrator of this particular template.RenRen070193 (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Admin note copied from Special:PermaLink/1101831384#Template:Philippine_name. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I'll have to agree with @Engr. Smitty's assessment at Template talk:Philippine name#Propose merging. In addition, we've already had this discussion already before at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 1#Template:Portuguese name and I still can't find a way to merge the two templates in a way that wouldn't create a mess; the Philippine name is way too complicated sometimes. I suggest the proposer stop beating the dead horse with changing the template to make it similar to or the same as other family name hatnote templates. Chlod (say hi!) 00:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also would note that the use of "matronymic" and "patronymic" (as suggested in User:RenRen070193/sandbox) can only serve to confuse readers, since this doesn't provide any sort of context on what is actually considered the surname or middle name. Chlod (say hi!) 01:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chlod Why don't you want to use the terms "first" (maternal family name) and "second" (paternal family name) just like in Template: Portuguese name or simply "middle name" or "surname" only? RenRen070193 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cause they are different. I have already explained this to you; don't you still get it? They have two surnames in the Portuguese name. Why do you want to change it into middle name and surname? Or vice versa, why do you want to change our middle name-surname format into first surname-second surname format that is used by Portuguese? We only have one surname. That is just factually wrong already if we change it. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also oppose the Philippine name merging since I found it disruptive, and also, how do we add the marital name since you are proposing the template to merge? Noobguy33 (user talk) 10:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Noobguy33 I think the marital name should be optional since there's a law that even a married women opt to use her maiden name instead of her husband's last name. I'll send you a link later. RenRen070193 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ok? but I still oppose it sorry. Noobguy33 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Noobguy33 Even you're against my position, I'll give you a link as follows:
    https://pcw.gov.ph/use-of-maiden-name/
    https://interaksyon.philstar.com/politics-issues/2021/12/02/205719/progressive-bill-letting-married-women-keep-their-maiden-name-draws-cheers/
    After you read the whole article, I hope you change your mind but not so I respect your opinion. Thank you for listening to my side and for being open-minded, I hope that you'll respect my side as well. Goodluck RenRen070193 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. Smitty and @Chlod also opposed it. All of us opposed your idea. I am sorry. Noobguy33 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now per my comments in the template's talk page, plus the apparent difficulty of merging the template as stated by Chlod. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. SmittyIf you don't want to change that, then I suggest to replace the terms "maternal family name" with "middle name" and "paternal family name" to "surname". RenRen070193 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    what do you mean? All infos are shown in the template, that the maternal family name = middle name and paternal family name = surname. So you mean, you want to just plainly remove the two "family names"? Engr. Smitty Werben 03:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. Smitty yes of course. I also admitted that I have a credit for this template and I'm the first to suggest to replace the parameter so I'm also decide to edit that for a better. RenRen070193 (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So why do you you want to remove the "maternal family name" and "paternal family name"? I think this is not the right place for this discussion though; we should only be talking about the merging suggestion here. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. Smitty Sorry I forgot about the merging suggestion here. I think better to merge the two templates sinc there's more variations of other templates such as Argentine, Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish variations. RenRen070193 (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay you already said that (that's is why you made this TfD in the first place, right?). Chlod have already responded to it. Could you read the link that Chlod gave? I'll link it again for you (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 1#Template:Portuguese name). After reading that discussion, why do you think we should still need to merge? Engr. Smitty Werben 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. Smitty I already knew the particular link @Chlod gave it to me. In fact, I already read the last year's conversation right before I responded. However, I think this is the time to make changes for that so the final answer is YES. We need to merge two templates since I mentioned earlier the different variations of the templates. My decision is final. That's it. RenRen070193 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Engr. Smitty Additionally, it's better to merge with the general family name hatnote because I believe that this would be appear to cover a wide variety of naming customs especially Spanish, Portuguese, Eastern Slavic (Russian, Bulgarian, Kazakh, etc.), English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, to name a few RenRen070193 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:2022 World U23 Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 as dependent on other all-deleted pages. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unused; all links are red now (after being deleted) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Chief ministers of Karnataka under Governors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

used in only one article. arguably, it's not needed there too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. This need not be a template. Rustyshackelford (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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).