Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 25 June 27 >

June 26 edit

Template:Persondata 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. The only major argument for keeping is "breaking old versions." However, this is refuted by the point that there are a large number of deleted templates that would "break" an old revision ID. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural TFD, following the deprecation RFC and subsequent bot-removal (now-complete-less-one-protected-page) by User:KasparBot.

Given that the template was hidden for almost all users (all anonymous readers/editors and likely the majority of logged-in users), this should not have a significant affect on the pages in the page history; where instead of a space being present for the template, a redlink now would be. Izno (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • support per Izno. -- T.seppelt (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support (as template creator). Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last transclusion in article space now removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no longer used and per Izno--Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite to issue an error in article space. given the massive number of non-article-space transclusions, I would hate to have this permanently in Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates just because of all the non-article-space transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I'd definitely prefer just to delete it. A sampling of the pages its used on in the first 50 transclusions appear generally to be (sometimes abandoned) drafts of articles. We can have it fully deprecated outside the mainspace in the context of this discussion as well, I think. @T.seppelt? --Izno (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also prefer to delete the template, but yes we need to find a solution for non-article transclusions first: I can either run the same script also on other namespace and just delete the transclusions. Another option would be to replace {{Persondata}} by <nowiki>{{Persondata...}}</nowiki>. This would preserve discussions on talk pages. What do you prefer? --T.seppelt (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on either solution. @Frietjes: do you? --Izno (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    wrapping them inside html comments or nowiki tags would work. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 transclusions in articles as of 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll delete them. Could we come to a conclusion for the other namespaces? Nowiki-tags? --T.seppelt (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frietjes: From a brief sampling it looks mostly like those articles are being un-redirected to more notable topics. @T.seppelt: I think I would recommend removing it in any non-talkspace and nowiki-ing it in talkspace. I'm on vacation now though so I won't be following too closely. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm now running a script with exactly this purpose. See examples in talk namespace and in non-talk namespace. I hope this is still covered by the approval of the bot's task. Considering the max. edit rate of 6 per min this will be done in 24 h (June 31, 12:30 UTC). -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you'll need to keep monitoring, if you want to stay meticulous about article space. A few hours ago someone undid a Kasparbot migration (I guess it's asking too much for casual editors to read and understand the Persondata deprecation). I left it there for now. The Persondata data, except for occupation, is already in the infobox anyway. David Brooks (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TS, you might consider seeking an additional task: a notification to users who have recently re-added the template. --Izno (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: the bot leaves now messages on the talk pages of the users which added the template recently to an article. Besides that the only pages which contain the template are either protected or user files. -- T.seppelt (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @T.seppelt: When did the bot start doing that? There's no message on User talk:103.52.126.29. David Brooks (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Today in the UTC+3 morning. I didn't notice any malfunctions back then. --T.seppelt (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's OK. The reversion and your re-deletion both happened on July 2. David Brooks (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. been seeing this template taking out of pages for a while :) --SuperJew (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rewrite - it "breaks" the preview of old version of more than 1.2 million articles[1] Christian75 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see the point in not deleting a template because it could break old revisions. If we would always argue like this we could never delete a template. Of course {{Persondata}} was used in 1.2 mio articles but this makes in my eyes not really a difference. If you view an old revision you have to deal with missing templates or templates with different output. Therefore delete. --T.seppelt (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the deletion rationale is much stronger in this case since the template was hidden before for almost all users. Per my original point above, there's no reason for retention. --Izno (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical and rewrite with error per Frietjes. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might also want to delete the redirects:
  • Delete or change to an error message. It may be that someone will try to recreate it as a blank page or something... —PC-XT+ 22:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as there are ZERO mainspace transclusions. The nine remaining transclusions come from copies of Wikipedia hoaxes or user pages. Eyesnore 16:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 05:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and mark as historical per Frietjes. There is no pressing need to delete this template, when accounting for the downside of broken historical revisions. SSTflyer 05:59, 4 July 2016 (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:Dates for Easter 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 2016 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 8 July 2016 (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:Anthropology collapsible 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 merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Anthropology collapsible with Template:Anthropology.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2016 (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:New Jersey school district spending table 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 2016 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2016 (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).

Chemical elements named after ... 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 2016 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 8 July 2016 (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:Shishumar class submarines 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 relist to July 7. Primefac (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard practice in ship articles, see pretty much any military ship out there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing is guaranteed, and there's really no need to navigate between a series of one-line "existence" stubs. The articles are going to get upmerged to class. MSJapan (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (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:Vela class submarines 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 relist to July 7. Primefac (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (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).

Excess Gospel of John–related templates 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 2016 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:26, 8 July 2016 (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:Kalvari class submarines 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 relist to July 7. Primefac (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:32, 26 June 2016 (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:User no IRC 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 move discussion to its new MFD page, as it is the proper location. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox; users who want to be added to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC can use {{User IRC}} anyway. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I believe that these users do not use IRC and believe IRC is detrimental for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD reason #1. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We traditionally give great leeway with templates meant for user self-identification. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because I do (or do not) use IRC doesn't mean I necessarily think it is the "heartworm of Wikipedia," and the fact that absolutely no one is using it (which I checked) seems to bear that point out. TFD reason 3 clearly applies. Yes, we give leeway for user expression, but this is really close to a pointless polemic. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, wrong venue. Userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions here. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2016 (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/2016_June_26&oldid=1142562441"