Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 22 January 24 >

January 23 edit

NCAA independents football records 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 22#Independents football records templates prior to 1956, it was determined that these templates should be broken up by geographical region. That has been done for the 7 years nominated here with the creation of templates like Template:1925 Eastern college football independents records. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't really see a consensus from that discussion to break up these templates by geographical region. I see you argued for it but no one else supported that specific change. Additionally, when I first saw the breakup of these templates by geographical region I actually thought that these were specific college football divisions called "Eastern independents" etc. and I don't know if this is the best way to divvy up independents. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247: User:Cbl62 certainly agrees with me here. He initiated the effort to break these up by region. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone can link to the prior discussion. My recollection is that we had consensus for the move, at least for the era before the University/College Division split. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it's linked. Looks like UWDawgs was the only one in at least semi-opposition. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after substituting per nom. These statistics are obviously wanted by the list article, but we don't need to keep a template used by one list. Doug Mehus T·C 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the one place where the nominated templates are still being used is List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1906–1955). That list should probably be deleted, as the scheme doesn't make sense per the above linked discussion. If need be, it can be replaced with something more appropriate once all the relevant templates are reorged. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2020 (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:Death-Date 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 speedy delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute. Looks like it was created in error. Its only apparent function is to display a singular date, which is in turn transcluded in one article. Bsherr (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2020 (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:Website Iran 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EXISTING. The few blue links just failures to disambiguate. Bsherr (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2020 (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:Scott Frank 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 2020 January 31. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2020 (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:NYexitnotice 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⚡ 23:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a template for this because there aren't many situations where it would apply. Because this is really just plain text, It's just easier to type out the notice the few times it would be needed than to template it.

That said, the grammar of the writing is bad; NYSDOT is an acronym, so it shouldn't normally be preceded by "the". The call to the page name result's in spelling out the name of a highway in full (with "in New York" when we would use the abbreviation ("Interstate 78 in New York exits numbers" vs. "I-78's exit numbers".)

The creator of the template has already displayed inappropriate ownership of it, reverting a replacement of the template iwht copy edited text by saying "It's useful; plus, it might not always be like that, for I will always be able to convert MY template into template format, etc." (emphasis on "MY" in original edit notice). Imzadi 1979 → 02:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it currently used? Or had it been used? Sometimes these templates are useful in allowing standardization of language. --Bsherr (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not currently used, and I don't see a need for it to be a template.— C16SH (speak up) 04:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't realize this template was only created today. I think this discussion is very premature. I'm willing to allow the creator some time to work on it. --Bsherr (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bsherr: valid point, but what does the template accomplish that can't be represented using plaintext in the article? — C16SH (speak up) 23:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, taken to the extreme, what does any template accomplish that can't be through "hard coding" it in each page? If the same content is to be displayed on several pages, transclusion is often preferable. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as impermissible storage of article text in a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery and it's unneeded. If they want to use this verbiage on articles, just copy and paste it. Doug Mehus T·C 15:03, 26 January 2020 (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/2020_January_23&oldid=1141875602"