Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16 edit

Template:WikiProject Arabic names 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 to Template:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Arabic names with Template:WikiProject Anthroponymy.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The Arabic names banner is pretty basic so this would be a simple task. PC78 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2019 (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:WikiProject Pterosaurs 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 2019 October 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 2 October 2019 (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:WikiProject Oregon government 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 to Template:WikiProject Oregon. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Oregon government with Template:WikiProject Oregon.
Should be merged as a parameter to the main template to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in functionality, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (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:Bury F.C. 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template. No reason to keep this now that the club does not have any players. Can be recreated when Bury know what league they'll join JMHamo (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no players, so no need for a 'current' squad template. GiantSnowman 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and chances are that if Bury resume play next season it will probably wind up being at quite a low level and chances are they will have very few bluelinked players and may not justify the template being re-created (but that is mainly speculation on my part) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (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:Quran aya 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused non-English template — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (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:Quran Surah 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused non-English template — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused & unusable collection of arabic redlinks. Cabayi (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 16 September 2019 (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:Bug 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template linking to bugzilla, now migrated to phabricator. All transclusions should be replaced with {{phab}}. --Trialpears (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. {{Bug}} seems not broken to me. {{bug|45221}} links to a different report (T47221) than {{phab|45221}} (T45221), so if you simply replace "bug" with "phab" you will break old links to old bugs, and force the otherwise unnecessary task of fixing them. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058 Fixing them is actually super easyl since the corresponding phabricator ID is always the bugzilla ID + 2000 (T47221 vs T47221). This can be changed in the template and then automatically substituted by AnomieBOT. The merger would be done in under an hour. There is always a risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working and this would easily avoid dead links if that ever were to happen. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently 857 transclusions of {{bug}} and 134 transclusions of {{Bugzilla}}. If fixing this requires editing all of them, that would be some high-speed editing to knock them all off in under an hour. However, I find the ‹The template Bug is being considered for deletion.›  message sufficiently annoying that I've updated my user page to use {{phab}}. If this can be done as smoothly as claimed, don't let me stand in the way. I suppose the first step in transitioning, to mitigate the risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working, is to modify the template to add 2000 and then call {{phab}} (essentially change where the redirects are happening to a place we can control). Template:Bug/sandbox was created in November 2014 by an editor who retired four years ago, and Template:Bugzilla/sandbox has yet to be created. I don't see {{Bug/sandbox}} using the "add 2000 trick". Also noting Template talk:Bug, apparently Phabricator does not support the comment links. Also, {{bug}} supports |comment= and |label= parameters, and support for |label= at least should be added to {{phab}}. See Template talk:Phab for that request. The proposed transitioning templates should be in these sandboxes, for review here. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make sure all that is done before they're replaced. Doing work while the template is in the holding cell is quite standard, but I should be able to update {{phab}} later tonight to accomodate for the merger. --Trialpears (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, forgot about updating here, but I made a merged version in the sandbox the same day as I would. --Trialpears (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (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:Ali Jones 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently moved this template to Template:St. Lunatics because I felt the individual did not have enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template while I felt the group did. I was going to start a WP:RM for this after I was reverted, but I am not sure the group has enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template and the best course of action would be to delete the template. Ali Jones has two releases: an album and a song that redirects back to the album, so he has one notable release. Even with the groups he was a part of, Ali & Gipp and St. Lunatics, there are not enough links to having the navigational template. Group releases should and are not included in other navigational template because they are not the individual's releases. Aspects (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This navigation box contains many useful links. If the navbox can not be kept, it should be repurposed to "Template:Ali & Gipp" or "Template:St. Lunatics". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough solo releases, collaborative releases are better suited for other templates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, appears to be in-use on nine articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough links to justify a navbox. --Trialpears (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (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:Dinah Jane 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 2019 October 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (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:ItalyDecade 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the generic Template:Decade in country category.

I have replaced all uses of this template with {{Decade in country category|Italy|Europe}}, so the template is now unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A appropriate consolidation. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (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/2019_September_16&oldid=919423256"