Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 25

< March 24	March 26 >

March 25 edit

Template:Doppelganger-other 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doppelganger-other (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is absolutely no reason that a user should create a doppelganger for another editor. Ryan Vesey 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll clarify, deletion isn't a legitimate option since this template has already been used. The template should be deprecated and never used again.~~ Ryan Vesey 21:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? If we decide not to use it, deprecation would perhaps not be noticed by would-be users, while substing and deleting would prevent people from using it without affecting the way it's been used in the past. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot substituting and deleting was an option, thanks for pointing it out. Ryan Vesey 00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to have a RFC or something on creating doppelgangers for other user's instead of this TFD. If the result is that it isn't appropriate, then this template should of course be deprecated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creation of doppelgangers by third-parties, especially without the advance permission of the user who is being "protected", is an unwarranted intrusion into the editor's Wiki-privacy. Any editor who wants to create a doppelganger who doesn't know how to do it can be talked through the process by any reasonably competent Wikipedian. If Emmette Hernansez Coleman want to help protect other editors, it would be best to contact them via e-mail and point out any vulnerabilities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this template back when a lot of people thought it would be funny to create fake Jimbo accounts. But now the problem's died down and there isn't too much of a use for this anymore, so it can be safely deleted and substed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete? - Would this count as a template that violates policy? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be used only in the case of departed users, who are not here to create their own doppelgangers (and perhaps also Jimbo, who can't be expected to do this sort of thing himself). — This, that and the other (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no reason to create an account for another editor. Editors should not be creating accounts for other people, even departed editors. Having other editors create similar accounts creates all kinds of issues. If I wanted to create an account with a similar name to mine as a legitimate alternate account, it would be an issue if another editor created one "to protect me" and has control over that account. - Sudo Ghost 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting a template won't stop anyone from creating doppelgänger accounts for other people. If you want to discourage or ban that behavior, then start a proper RfC on it. In addition, there may be some instances where a user wants to create a doppelgänger account for themselves, but they can't because of a technical restriction that prevents creating account names that are very similar to existing accounts. Therefore, a user with the accountcreator right would have to create it for them, and thus this template still has a legitimate use. See WP:ACCP. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 13:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst at this moment in time I would rather not have someone create a doppelgänger of me, I can clearly see a purpose for this template: for a departed editor whom has been the victim of abuse (or just for an editor whom departed after a long period of time here). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this even up for discussion? Registering doppelgangers for high-profile users to prevent their abuse is a long standing security habit around the wiki. -- ۩ Mask 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over at WP:ANI, an accountcreator says "account creators do create doppelgangers for other users if and when requested". Whatever you think about unrequested Doppelgänger, this template is good for marking the requested ones. Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep used on 224 pages not including TfD —rybec 03:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While creating dopplegangers for other users is permitted there is no good reason to delete this template, if you want to change that policy then feel free to see if there is consensus for it but this is not the way to go about it. Also per Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've just left a notice about this discussion on the doppelganger policy talk page[1] as this template is currently explicitly mentioned in the policy (see WP:DOPPELGÄNGER. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 4 April 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:Starbox character 2s 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) 00:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starbox character 2s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

now redundant to {{Starbox character}}, after I added a component. it was only being used in two articles (ADS 16402 and Gamma Cephei), and had become out-of-sync with {{Starbox character}}. this also means we won't need a {{Starbox character 3s}} for CFBDSIR 1458+10. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this affect Starbox multi? Lithopsian (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the two are part of different systems, so, it does not have any immediate impact. however, given that Template:Starbox multi has far fewer uses, it might be a good idea to examine whether or not that template is needed. it results in a relatively wide infobox, which might be more compact in a more vertical presentation. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 1 April 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:Jerry A Martin 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; deleted as G6 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jerry A Martin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article in template namespace; Jerry Martin (singer) was created shortly afterwards with the same content. Super Mario Man 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a candidate for {{Db-g6}}, given the situation ... so I stuck that tag on the template. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 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 National Sport Association of the Deaf 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One-use template that is functionally redundant to Template:Infobox organization. Super Mario Man 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had created Template:Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf because there was no suitable. Deutscher Gehörlosen-Sportverband is not a national Olympic committee. Therefore Template:Infobox National Olympic Committee can not be used. I think about to move it to Template:Infobox Sport Association of the Deaf, so can use it more possible items, eg Deaf International Basketball Federation. Is this a good solution? Thank you, greetings --Jean11 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean11 (talk • contribs) Template:Infobox organization has no |country =,| code = ,| created =,| recognized =,| association =,| president =

Merge together with {{Infobox National Olympic Committee}} , {{Infobox National Paralympic Committee}} to become a {{Infobox National Multisports Competition Committee}} , thus can be expanded to cover organizers for the Francophonie Games and Commonwealth Games as well. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deaf sport is not part of the Paralympic movement at all, so any merger in that regards is not appropriate. Merging the Paralympics and the Olympics National Committee ones would require its own as I suspect there would be strong opposition and those templates would become even more complex syntax wise. If it is not being used in that many articles, this can be remedied rather quickly by creating appropriate stubs or updating relevant articles to include it. --LauraHale (talk) 10:48, 5 April 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:Pankaj Oswal Official Blog 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) 00:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pankaj Oswal Official Blog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created to link to a one, specific personal blog. No foreseeable use whatsoever outside the one article in which it is already transcluded. Super Mario Man 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe speedy delete as spam. Seems like blatant attempt to promote a personal blog. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Used only in the head article Pankaj Oswal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 28 March 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:A Smile from the Trenches 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) 00:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Smile from the Trenches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only 3 linked albums, which falls below NENAN's minimum of 5. (Below that number, the pages can be easily cross-linked in the body of the article). Note that all 3 of the albums in this template have been nominated for deletion. See AFD: Leave the Gambling for Vegas, AFD: Caught Cheating, AFD:A Smile from the Trenches EP. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if one or more of the AfDs close as merge or delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article on the band is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Smile from the Trenches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 30 March 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:The Accüsed 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Accüsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. This navbox contains links to 8 albums by the band The Accüsed, but the first 7 of those album pages are actually redirects to the band article. Only The Curse of Martha Splatterhead is a separate page, and we don't need a navbox to link 2 pages together. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Contest - For the record, the album articles were merged and redirected AFTER I created the navbox. Therefore, I do not contest the deletion of the template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 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.