Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7 edit

OC Transpo s-line 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 -FASTILY 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S-line templates

S-line templates for OC Transpo which have been superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/OC Transpo. All tranclusions replaced. The 28 s-line data modules in the collapsed section should also be deleted as they're dependent on the four main templates. BLAIXX 22:13, 7 May 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:Ref name=Hoehn 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 7 May 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).

2020 association football leagues 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. czar 04:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per established consensus templates content merged with parent articles. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @BlameRuiner for my own interest, I support these mergers but haven't actually seen where the consensus was formed other than by having lots of similar nominations. Do you know of a particular discussion? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 8 May 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:Uw-mislead1 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 May 14. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:48, 14 May 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:IowaHistologyInteractive 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 May 14. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:48, 14 May 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:Uw-ew 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 against merger. czar 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-ew with Template:Uw-3rr.
These templates cover the same issue (edit warring), but the latter also covers WP:3RR. Both are commonly used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Twinkle's users/maintainers were not notified of this discussion, I have done so now. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I oppose merger. I think they are interchangeable in some circumstances, but {{Uw-ew}} is probably more useful if the user has not violated 3RR or if 1RR applies. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edit warring is a different thing to 3RR. For example, I would use uw-ew if the warring is occurring over multiple articles or over a longer time period and uw-3rr if the 3RR rule has been or is about to be broken. I also see a use for uw-ew as a gentler version than uw-3rr for situations that aren't as serious or immediate, which is especially important now that Template:Uw-ewsoft has been deleted. I think the fact that both are commonly used suggests that they both have a purpose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while they have overlaps, edit warring and breaking the 3rr are not necessarily the same thing. For example you can edit war without getting close to 3rr and "warring" is an unhelpful phrase for some instances of 3rr breaches. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the templates aren't really differentiated that way. Uw-3rr only mentions 3RR in tangentially to edit warring. So I think the question is, if no changes to the templates are to be made, do they overlap enough that one can be used? Or if it is actually desirable to have two templates, is there a way they can be better differentiated? --Bsherr (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. However, the proposal raises valid concerns about the similarity of the wording in the two templates. Imo, Template:Uw-3rr should explicitly state the editor is accused of violating WP:3RR rather than leaving it as a hypothetical.   Forbes72 | Talk   23:53, 8 May 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:Uw-infobox 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 May 14. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:39, 14 May 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:Shostakovich concertos 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:Dmitri Shostakovich. No prejudice against holding a discussion for "splitting" the target template and/or selectively transcluding specific sections based on location. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All links are in {{Dmitri Shostakovich}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The small template is defined and well scoped. The parent template is very long. I think the current arrangement serves readers better than removing the small template and replacing it with a huge one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per preexisting redundancy. Eventual split nominations could and should be dealt with in a more wholesome manner, and done separately. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect after fixing articles where both are transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 00:59, 15 May 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:Crapsrolls 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. This 6x6 table could easily be substituted directly onto the Craps article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzyzx11: It's currently broken in the article itself — did the nom cause that or was it already that way? I support deletion; it could be a subpage of the article if needed, but doesn't need to be a template. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, it was the nom.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Used once. Can be merged into the exceedingly and somewhat too detailed main article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete into the main article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. Used once. The links it contains are already in the Craps navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 20:03, 8 May 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_May_7&oldid=956881932"