Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12 edit

Template:WikiProject Lua/Lua wikipedia colors 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 October 20 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:01, 20 October 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:USSR dogs 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) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:USSR dogs with Template:Russian dogs.
The three dog breeds encompassed within this template are covered in Russian dogs, they were developed in Russia during the Soviet period. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes sense to me. Miyagawa (talk) 09:52, 13 October 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:Image usage by The Toggle Suite 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; deleted as G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless navigation box between files. This seems more to be internal documentation about use of files in the templates rather than something used fir navigation. Whpq (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm about to nip over to Commons and nominate a bunch of these images for deletion, since they're clearly not (as claimed) created by the uploader, but are very obvious cut-and-paste screengrabs from iOS (compare the quite distinctive shading in the iOS toggle and File:Toggle on blue.png). ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is why we have categories. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from original creator: Okay no problem delete it! VarunFEB2003 11:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 October 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).

Analog clock 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 delete all ~ Rob13Talk 14:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unused (the original template has six user-space transclusions), redundant, and non-fucntional (they show the time the page was rendered, but do not update). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, or move to userspace like many of the other clock templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from the page of the blocked user: Useful templates and should be kept. We have a lot of clocks in template space and I think we should keep these. VarunFEB2003 11:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Why would anyone want a clock that doesn't update, when we have a perfectly good clock gadget which does update and resides in the menubar so doesn't take up space? Utterly pointless cruft. Needless to say, as appears to be par for the course for User:VarunFEB2003 templates 2–4 are uncredited plagiarism (in this case, from User:ais523/Sandbox/Clock). ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, and seems like it won't be used anytime soon. Just asking, @Iridescent:, what's the link for the (updating and working) clock? WikiPancake ✉ 📖 14:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! WikiPancake ✉ 📖 12:39, 19 October 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:Vacation3 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 redirect to {{vacation}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Vacation}}. Fewer than 10 transclusions on user or user-talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 12 October 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:Zalaegerszegi TE sections 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 no consensus. NPASR (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading template, as the backlink is not pointing to the parent club (that has no article) but to the football section. With just two relevant links (out of three possible) it can be replaced by a "See also"-section The Banner talk 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:17, 12 October 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:Pécsi VSK sections 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 no consensus. NPASR. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template to navigate between sections of a multisportclub, but there is no article about the parent, making the template swim in the water and losing its purpose. The Banner talk 08:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are plenty of (Hungarian?) templates like this (Template:Vasas SC sections, Template:Zalaegerszegi TE sections, Template:Ferencvárosi TC sections, Template:MTK Budapest sections, Template:Műegyetemi AFC sections, Template:Kecskeméti TE sections, Template:Budapesti Honvéd SE sections, etc.), where there is no article for the parent entity, making look like the football team is The club. I don't know whether it is an issue for the Hungarian sports templates only, but if you think this in inappropriate, you should delete almost all of these templates. And actually for PVSK there is a kind-of-parent site, the Pécsi VSK (disambiguation) page. vampeare (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a disambiguation page is an even worse idea than not linking at all. With the link (now again removed) is will show up at teh maintenamnce list "Templates with disambiguation links". With just 4 subsections, it can easily be replaced by a "See also"-section. The Banner talk 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:17, 12 October 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_October_12&oldid=1074062686"