Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14

Template:Upcoming events

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last updated 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TVoter

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 August 2015 (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:Spotlight-project

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Project is defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 14 August 2015 (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:SportWB

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Busy}}, {{Wikibreak}}, et al. (Presently unused.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 14 August 2015 (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:Stable version

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks community adoption (only 45 transclusions); likely to become outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: It's expected and by design that this would not be used very frequently, because editing battlegrounds don't break out often enough and do so on top of long-stable version, that the template would need to be used frequently. It should probably have a |date= parameter, and be bot-removed or at least be in a maint. cat., so it can be removed, after some particular time defined on its documentation page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's useful, then keep it. I just had a look at Norwich Market, with this diff proving quite revealing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per SMcC ; why should we expect that every article is likely to have edit wars? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template cannot stop edit wars. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not its purpose. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why refer to edit wars in your comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am wondering if you read SMcCandlish's opinion or not, since I most definitely citied it in my opinion. Stable versions are useful in pages with edit wars, since it can identify a place to compare from, or to revert to, for status quo ante bellum. And to discuss from, as it would show what has changed and what's disputed in the edit war. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • There appears to be no connection between his comment and your rhetorical question. Who says we should "expect that every article is likely to have edit wars?"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your rationale combined with SMcC's opinion results in a situation where most of Wikipedia should contain edit wars, if this is expected to be widely used. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per SMcC, only 45 transclusions does not imply this template is useless. BethNaught (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WRONG. If the current version is wrong due to vandalism, just revert it to the clean version rather that noting on talk page. If it is wrong due to edit wars (what WP:WRONG specifically refers to), discuss on talk page and seek dispute resolution rather than blatantly stating that the current version is wrong and that the other version is right. The template constitutes the latter, so it should be orphaned and deleted. --TL22 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per  — SMcCandlish and Rich Farmbrough, this is still a useful template. The apparent lack of community adoption, its liklihood to become outdated and the applicability of WP:WRONG are just examples of insufficient research on the part of those who support its deletion. Painius  22:23, 11 September 2015 (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:Sharedipedu 1

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Sharedipedu 1 to Shared IP edu. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Sharedipedu 1 with Template:Shared IP edu; or simply deleting for former.

Very similar (and similarly-named) templates. No apparent reason we need two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly merge; looks like an inadvertent fork.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing inadvertent about it. Template:Shared IP edu was changed, and I thought (and still think) that there are a few circumstances where the older version was more appropriate, so I saved a copy of it. It has remained for two years, until Pigsonthewing, who seems to have an obsession with deleting templates, decided he or she didn't like it. There is nothing wrong with having two alternatives to choose from, and no reason to prevent anyone from using the alternative if they think there is a reason to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The former is an unnecessary fork of the more-used latter. Also, your info is outdated, {{Shared IP edu}} has 87,856 transclusions, not 87,847. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is there to merge? Wikipedia:Abuse response is no longer operational. Alakzi (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{Sharedipedu 1}} to {{Shared IP edu}} instead. Really, merging would be a good idea if it wasn't, per Alakzi's statement, that WP:Abuse response is inactive and retained for historical reference. {{Sharedipedu 1}} refers to Abuse Response while {{Shared IP edu}} doesn't, making it precisely the problem. --TL22 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Point everything tagged with Sharedipedu 1 to Shared IP edu. Abuse response is dead; although that doesn't mean that we can't still contact the institution (anybody with an internet connection can and it's not hard to do), that's not the purpose of these templates. The purpose of these Shared IP templates is to point out that a lot of people use the said IP address and to remind administrators and RC patrols to assume good faith (although that idea is lost on most people; most people do the opposite when they see it's a school IP) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 19:40, 6 September 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress. Alakzi (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A random sample of transclusions of the first template show it remaining on article talk pages for between five and ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 14 August 2015 (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:Shoutbox sidebar

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. Alakzi (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard interface, more than likely to confuse editors encountering it. Redundant in part to 'notifications'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 14 August 2015 (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:Please be neutral

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was orphan and delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly always used alongside {{Controversial}}, to which it is thus redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)i Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Visibility-WT-Upload

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Alakzi (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, in an edit notice, where it should be Subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-spanonblock

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I created this a while back as part of a number of templates for consistency, but it's not used any more. Delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be always "Subst"ed so its hard to tell if it's unused. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translation attribution

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved It would have been better to contact me as the creator of the templateHmm, I have a similar template somewhere else. I've moved it to user space. Closing this discussion now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trains FI

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Calmer Waters (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 8 transclusions. Non-functioning links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I created this template as part of the maintenance for Portal:Trains. Over the last ten years of editing the portal, especially now that the images used for the selected picture section are all hosted on Commons, this template's need has reduced significantly to where it is no longer used and is safe to delete without problems. Thank you for notifying me of this entry. Slambo (Speak) 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - G7, perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished into Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary with Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished.
Similar purposes. No apparent need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talk Spoken Wikipedia id-3

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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Template:Talk Spoken Wikipedia id-3. Alakzi (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 14 August 2015 (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:Talk archive navigationB

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to {{Talk archive navigation}} with a switch to activate alternate text -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. If anybody ever asks for alternative text, it can be discussed on the talk page of the original template. Alakzi (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge; I'm not particular, but its redundancy is obvious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Horse breeds

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SOCK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the list articles.Algircal (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CLN; such redundancy is explicitly permissible, because the different forms of navigation are used differently by different people in different contexts for different reasons. However, some of the breed navboxes are in need of redlink cleanup, and a few might be deletion-worthy if they're mostly redlinks (I think one of the goat breeds ones was like this). They should probably be userspaced to whoever has most worked on them. I get the sense that many if not most of the are semi-active works in progress, and I know I've added entries to more than one of them myself, though not in the equine sphere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never sure about nav-boxes in general, but if we are to have them, these are as good as any. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandlish as a standard navbox. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominator has perhaps not been here long enough to have read the page cited as a rationale for deletion, WP:CLN, where the first paragraph, WP:NOTDUP, specifically states that it is "neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." That's the case here – the categories, lists and navboxes have different content (for example, the lists contain the references that would be inappropriate in a navbox) and serve different and complementary purposes; that of the navbox is to allow one-click navigation between groups of closely-associated articles and to indicate, in accordance with WP:REDLINK, which articles in the group still remain to be written.
  • Algircal, may I suggest that you take some time to become more familiar with our practices and guidelines before making further deletion nominations? And that if and when you do make such a nomination, you have the courtesy to notify the creator of the page and the relevant WikiProject(s)? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 15 *Speedy keep: When these were created, it was with consensus after much discussion (and, full disclosure, I originally was kind of dubious, but I've come around to fully support their creation and usefulness). I have come to see them as a helpful tool and useful for those interested in the topic of breeds by nation. The navbox is actually more helpful than a category as it also lists breeds with alternative names and redlinks to those that are missing and need to be created. They have been around for several years now, and given that there is now only one or two editors working on these, they would, I suspect, but glad for help in creating more articles. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope: look at the disclaimers at the top of the navboxes: "Many have complex or obscure histories, so inclusion here does not necessarily imply that a breed is predominantly or exclusively German". The navboxes indicate that they are not navigating articles but listing information that should be on a list; in other words, duplicating the list.Algircal (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was to explain why some breeds might show up in more than one "breeds by country" list- for example Hafingers, with both German and Italian roots. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Filing user Algircal has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Previous account has a longstanding penchant for tendentious editing related to equine articles. renewing speedy close request. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Donkey breeds

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SOCK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was

Redundant to the list articles. Algircal (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CLN; see related listing above for detailed rationale and cleanup notes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:10, 14 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_14&oldid=1086089150"