Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 26

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

September 26 edit

Template:Join AWWDCCW 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 userfy. The ANI outcome has little effect on this TFD. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some invitation for a private hobby The Banner talk 22:11, 26 September 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:Kayseri Erciyesspor squad 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club does not have any notable players anymore, thus no blue links in the navigation box, after it relegated to 4th tier of Turkish football in summer 2016. Kq-hit (talk) 20:49, 26 September 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:Preoccupations 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. REFUNDable provided other related pages actually get created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With articles only for two albums, this navbox is unnecessary at this time as it does not aid in the navigation of the existing related articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we can use standard in-article linking for two albums. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 27 September 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:Wikibreak3 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 existing transclusions have been subst'd. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary wrapper for {{Wikibreak}}, with only five (5) transclusions, which can be substituted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Number of transclusions at the present date should not used as rationale for deletion. There might be a day when there will be no transclusion or a day when hundreds of Wikipedians might want to you it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either a user is on a Wikibreak or they're not, and this template does not indicate if the user using it is currently on one. Therefore, {{Wikibreak}} should be used instead. anemoneprojectors 15:03, 1 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:Tameside Lines Current 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has become redundant as this template is much more up to date and complex. Nathan A RF (talk) 16:15, 26 September 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:I retired in the multiverse 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used by one editor only. Delete, or move to userspace if still needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope I'm not being too bureaucratically minded, but isn't that practically a userbox, and as such excluded from discussion here? Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring up at MfD instead per above. Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...or keep as a harmless bit of userspace humour. Uanfala (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing !vote: no need to be so nitpicky given that there is a proper discussion now.. Uanfala (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the current context, this discussion is insensitive. Keep as a harmless bit of userspace humour or move to userspace. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Epipelagic. It's harmless, and could be userified. And the one user who has it, is someone with a long contribution history who abruptly stopped editing, and perhaps may be unwell. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come to think of it, keep rather than userify, per Ivanvector, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy VarunFEB2003 15:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't help but think that Pigsonthewing nominated the above template due to our minor history with each other, which wasn't exactly fun. As seen here and here, the template was a present given to me by Viriditas. It has nothing to do with my health, and I didn't think of it as something that needs official approval. Do with it what you will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Flyer22 Reborn: I apologize for the miswording of my comment above. I was referring to Viriditas, and in no way did I intend to imply anything about you. I didn't realize that he had put the template on someone else's page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tryptofish, I see. I did think you were referring to me since I had stopped editing for a few days and there is currently a note on my user page/talk page about my health. I didn't take offense to your comment, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I'm glad that I was able to clear that up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suspicion is false (in fact, I have no recollection of ever having interacted with you before); and WP:AGF has not been rescinded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - entirely harmless. Deletion/userfication/substitution just makes pointless work. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector, I agree but I can't help observing that this is TfD and most of what what we do here is about fixing things that aren't broken. Uanfala (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no improvement by deleting this.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:01, 7 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:UWAYOR 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 7 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:08, 7 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:Good Morning Britain 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 (non-admin closure) Pppery 18:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 08:13, 26 September 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:Eggheads (TV series) 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast/crew removed per WP:PERFNAV. Now not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not helpful. Links in intro/infobox anyway. Nigej (talk) 09:15, 26 September 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:Militaries of Warsaw Pact Countries 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is transclused into only one page, so it does not fulfill the definition of a template (template should be included into several pages). It should be substituted and then deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • substitute/delete or merge/redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 26 September 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:All Tvvins 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 (non-admin closure) Pppery 19:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nav box with only two links. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 26 September 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:Uw-drumpfinator 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way too specific. Could be generalized and moved to {{subst:uw-textreplace}}, as there are other, similiar, browser extensions (including "Cloud to Butt" and various xkcd-inspired ones). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:13, 26 September 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:Verifiability 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 Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Pppery 01:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Verifiability with Template:Refimprove.
Basically the same template. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn - I have re-added text to the Verifiability template that was removed in 2007 in favor of a copy-pasted "the X of this article is disputed" template. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • KATMAKROFAN, these two templates are widely used and have relevance for the way basic policies are applied. Where have you placed notifications about this discussion? Uanfala (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they're not. {{Verifiability}} has only 33 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I've overlooked that. Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it does seem best to just redirect then. Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • But these templates have different messages. Requesting that additional references be added is different from indicating a general problem with verifiability, which can be down to other factors instead, like insufficient reliability of the sources used. Uanfala (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{Verifiability}} to {{Refimprove}}, without changing the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge: {{Verifiability}} indicates that someone thinks content is unverifiable, while {{Refimprove}} indicates that there need to be more footnotes. I've used {{Refimprove}} in articles that have content that is at least plausible (for instance, measurements of plants that sound about right), but doesn't have enough footnotes. I would not use {{Verifiability}} in that situation, because that would imply something more, that the measurements cannot be found in any source. — Eru·tuon 20:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment It may be better to merge {{Verifiability}} to {{Verify sources}}. Perhaps by changing the wording to simply indicate that the sources used in the article should be checked? – Allen4names (contributions) 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{verify sources}} is basically the same as {{multiple issues|{{refimprove}}{{excessive citations}}}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: these templates do not overlap. In cases where I add references to an unreferenced article, I change Template:Verifiability to Template:Refimprove. However, it might be possible to do a merge with an optional flag that switches from one message to the other. Praemonitus (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are two different things. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per editors Uanfala and Eru·tuon. These templates have two different meanings and applications, and I find it difficult to accept that either of these has less than several hundreds or even thousands of transclusions. Has someone cleaned out {{Verifiability}}'s WLH list? Yes, it seems they have, for now there are only three mainspace transclusions rather than the 33 Andy mentioned. That arduous task should be reversed immediately.  Paine  u/c 21:20, 26 September 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:KTZ style 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 7 Oct. Primefac (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another template with no other function than adding styles, bars and colours to templates The Banner talk 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are more than 600 such templates, which shows that styling in this was is used frequently. If you want to change that, nominate all 600 of them in one nomination. Pppery 19:40, 6 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:RR style 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 7 Oct. Primefac (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template with no other function than adding unwanted styles to templates The Banner talk 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my comment on the above tfd. Pppery 19:40, 6 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_September_26&oldid=1143743300"