Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29

Template:Big Yellow Button

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; deleted as T3 by Shirt58 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Yellow Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is obsolete because the category it uses, Category:Articles the need to be Wikified, no longer exists. The template that put articles in that category, Template:Wikify, has been deprecated since August due to this nomination for deletion. This button no longer does anything, so I recommend its deletion. Liam987 (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2014 (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:Not a help page

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. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not a help page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have more standardised banners than this one. This is huge and IMO aggressive. We should always assume good faith. Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the equivalent message and bold visual style can be shown to be available elsewhere. This is used on Wikipedia talk:Signatures, where it goes some way to mitigating the daily occurrence of misplaced messages on that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Mabbett There is only 1 transclusion. What about substituting it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better than deletion; but keeping a template is preferable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because? This phenomenon seems to be unique to Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Keφr 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic: can anyone tell me why questions of this type keep appearing on that page? Keφr 13:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and/or delete, given the transclusion count. Note however that if general questions still kept appearing on WT:SIG, it would mean this banner has failed its purpose. (But I think it has not been very frequent lately.) Keφr 13:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't failed if it has reduced the number of such messages; which on cursory inspection seems to be the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. But I am curious why people keep landing on that page in the first place. Should we not fix that problem instead? Keφr 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you indicate the more standardized templates this is supposed to be replaced with? -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{not a forum}} and {{talk header}} can do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: To better establish consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate talk banners should be chosen with care. When they are overused, they are diluted, which only ramps up the treadmill: the result is that someone tries again with bold text and a bigger font. And thus we end up here. {{Not a forum}}, along with a degree of diligent adminning, should suffice here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{not a forum}} and {{talk header}}. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per P199 and others Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2014 (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:Finalhist

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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Finalhist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as creator. Is it possible that this is only unused because no one knows about it? --N Y Kevin 23:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy for now - The |move=yes urls weren't correct, but I made an edit and now may be using this on my talk page. Generally speaking, it could be substituted. —PC-XT+ 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Only three reviewers after two weeks

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was created four years ago and if it hasn't been adopted by now there is little chance it will be in the future.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per mon prince. Good housekeeping. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — To avoid misunderstanding, when I said the template could generally be substituted, I meant it could be modified to be substituted, since, at minimum, the two uses of ~~{{REVISIONID}} should be something like {{{{{|safesubst:}}}REVISIONID}}~~ for it to actually work as intended when substituted and transcluded. —PC-XT+ 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my logic was backwards. {{REVISIONID}} should be transcluded in the result. —PC-XT+ 20:04, 10 January 2014 (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:Scott Cooper

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) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scott Cooper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, links only two articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, quite useless. Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 11:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed for only two film articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:10, 30 December 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:Skeleton novel

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) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skeleton novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use. Project page without edits for over 2 years. Have posted a notification there as well. Recommend straightforward deletion. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deletion seems uncontroversial. Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article on novels are individual entities. While a basic template for what to consider in such an article is nice, using such a template in an article does not work. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have 3 people here who want to delete this, and it was relisted by a non-admin for no other reason than that nobody had deleted it yet by the time he came along (I asked him on his talk page). Can we delete this now? Debresser (talk) 19:19, 30 December 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:Infobox Ampang Line

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) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ampang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Batu Caves-Port Klang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox BRT Sunway Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Kelana Jaya Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox MRT Sungai Buloh-Kajang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Rawang-Seremban Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Shah Alam Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates, should be merged with the articles, then deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete all, per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete {{Infobox Rawang-Seremban Line}}; delete the rest. Fleet Command (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 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:Infobox KLRT route

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) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox KLRT route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

mostly redundant to template:infobox rail line, just need to add the line striping, and it's entirely redundant. only a handful of transclusions. I propose replacing it with the standard infobox, then deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replacement with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 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.