Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25 edit

Template:Estonian dialects 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonian dialects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HPC rowt 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge, it appears the issues have been fixed by splitting the long lists. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HPC rowt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Labelled as "temporary template" a year ago; redundant to {{HPC row}}. Now that {{Coord}} is coded using lua, the number of transclusions is less critical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was created because {{GeoGroupTemplate}} was not working but which seems to be fine now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Andy's edit to {{HPC row}} causes transclusion limits to be exceeded on some lists that use it, so I have reverted it. When no lists do so, it may be appropriate to delete this (assuming there is a process for updating the places that use it). (There are people like me working on this right now, but it's not happening overnight.) Magic♪piano 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note recent discussion of this issue on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Following further discussion, I've agreed, for the time being, with your revert at {{HPC row}} - so why do we also need this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Until {{HPC row}} is converted, places that use this template and {{GeoGroup}} would result in a useless GeoGroup box. As I said above, this template is almost redundant, but deleting it now is premature. I'm guessing the offending lists will probably be reduced within the next 2-3 weeks, at which point this template will be redundant. If administrators want to hold this TFD open for that length of time, I can let it be known here when that work seems to be advanced to the point where use of a Coord-supporting {{HPC row}} won't cause problems anymore. Magic♪piano 15:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pigsonthewing and Magicpiano: Could we hurry up either a code-update, or a bot-run to replace all uses, or a postpone-for-30-days decision, or something, please? Because commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 just started, and the TfD template is barfing all over pages like List of historic places in Capital Regional District. Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've "noincluded" the notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the only problematic list left at this point is List of historic places in Ontario. I hope to get through it in the next few days. (I had also hoped this work would be done before WLM started.) Magic♪piano 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to both of you :) –Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have finished splitting the Ontario list. The only lists that are not completely split are List of historic places in Alberta and List of historic places in Saskatchewan, but they do not appear long enough to be a problem. I have restored the use of {{Coord}} in {{HPC row}}, and have not thus far seen any transclusion limit violations in other lists that I've checked. Magic♪piano 22:47, 2 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NRHP row2 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRHP row2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; undocumented; unedited for a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. ...William 12:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NYCLP row 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCLP row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unfinished, marked as such for 12 months Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:14, 26 August 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pp doc 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere, and I can't figure out what it's supposed to be for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a documentation page template for template documentation, it supposed to be used on all the page protection templates documentation pages, since they all had the same parameters -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of them use it though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, though, did they in the past? And should they in the future, so as to not spread PP-Meta documentation duplication? (thus changes to PP-meta that are universally applicable can be updated in this template instead of each doc page) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hotels in Norfolk 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotels in Norfolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a large and messy list of buildings, most of which are architecturally and historically non-notable and won't ever warrant even a mention on the town's page, let alone their own article. Breaking a list of hotels down by "star rating" makes no sense - since England doesn't have an official hotel ranking system, this is completely arbitrary since, for instance, the AA will often give a different star ranking than TripAdvisor which in turn will give a different ranking than VisitEngland. Looking at Category:Hotel templates, there is no other comparable "list of every hotel" template for anywhere in the world - there are templates like {{Hotels in Paris}} but they only list the genuinely significant buildings, not a catch-all list. Given how big this is even for a sparsely-populated place like Norfolk, going down this route would lead to enormously bloated templates bigger than the articles themselves in the case of somewhere like Moscow, New York or Hong Kong. Mogism (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but make sure all the articles are in Category:Hotels in Norfolk. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.