Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 28

< February 27	March 1 >

February 28 edit

Template:Blood Feast 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) 05:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blood Feast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox for only two articles/transclusions. Offers no additional aid in navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notice - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Please notify the template creator regarding this TfD, as required by the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a requirement but a courtesy, and the author of the template hasn't edited in over 3 months. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You should notify the creator of the template nominated," per the TfD instructions. Notifying major contributors and concerned WikiProjects is a courtesy; notifying template creators is a requirement. And editors on wikibreaks often receive email notices of user talk page activity. Please take care of the notice. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when does "should" mean "must"? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you really want to argue the intent of the TfD instructions? We're holding everyone to the same standard -- our XfD processes work best when they include proper notice and procedural fairness. Furthermore, the best sources of information about the history, purposes and uses of a given template are often the creator and major contributors, and they may contribute information to a TfD that otherwise is not presented to the discussion participants. You've been on-wiki for 5+ years; I suspect you know this already. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Dirtlawyer1: as much as it pisses me off when someone refuses to notify the original contributor of an XfD, I'm afraid that @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: is right: policy doesn't require the nominator to inform the creator. As proof you can take a look at this ANI thread I started in response to a similarly minded IP. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        GSP, I have provided the template creator with notice of this TfD: [1]. There are other ways to get the cooperation of nominators -- providing the notice for theem and then re-listing the TfD from the date of actual notice, and/or voting against TfDs where the nominator appears to have refused to provide notice as an advantage in the XfD process. So much for "courtesy" to our fellow editors, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not about Blood Feast, and there are only two bluelinks on the template -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not everything needs a navbox, and it seems this one is redundant. T C N7JM 20:21, 1 March 2015 (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:Naples landmarks 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) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Naples landmarks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The lists are arbitrary and too long.
The template format means: What links here loses utility as a method of creating meaningful links.
Since there is a category and entry of Churches in Naples: if the template is to exist at all, it should reference one or both. All churches that are landmarks should be in that entry, that is, if they are landmarks.
Some of the entries in the landmarks are for profit museums, or places to visit in the surrounding countryside. Selective choices at best, blatant advertising at worst.

Rococo1700 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rococo1700: this entry is malformed and illegible, making it impossible for others to discern which template you want deleted. Could you please clarify? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Never mind, it's clear that you meant Template:Naples landmarks, so I have fixed the nom. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notice - @Rococo1700: Please notify the template creator regarding this TfD, as required by the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, way too big. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not so much because this navbox is "big," but because it is poorly conceived and organized. The template is named "Naples landmarks," but its navbox display title is "Tourism in Naples"; there is no particular reason why any reader would jump from an article about a Neapolitan street to a Neapolitan castle. Perhaps it is not a coincidence there is no supporting list article for the navbox topic, as required by WP:NAVBOX; if there was such a list, it likely would have helped the creator better create a coherent set of related links rather than the ambiguous, incomplete and somewhat random "landmarks." Per WP:NAVBOX, this is not a list of links about a single coherent topic, but a collection of several such lists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2nd comment regarding notice - The creator of this template was not notified of this pending TfD discussion until 8 March 2015: [2]. Please re-list/extend this discussion for a minimum of seven additional days, through 15 March, to provide the template creator with a fair opportunity to respond and comment. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2015 (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:Haliplidae reference 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 - author agrees. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Haliplidae reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Spam link template with no useful content. As a reference, it doesn't serve to support the articles it has been added to. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What reference do you think shows it better? I think the reference is useful in the fact that it proves that these species exist, and gives their authority. I saw on Haliplus canadensis that you added the EOL reference, and for that species it is useful. However, the template is still useful. Gug01 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gug01: I don't know what page you are looking at, but the URL provided in the template (http://bug.tamu.edu/research/collection/hallan/) has nothing to do with the species. Also, why do you need the reference as a template? Why can't you just put it on the page like any other reference? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes sense. Go ahead and delete the template. Gug01 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. WP:G7 speedy per template creator Gug01's agreement to delete immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2015 (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:Ibid later 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) 05:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ibid later (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{harvp}}. Used on two pages, where use is broken due to lack of main reference (already noted on talk pages). Gadget850^talk 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after suitable replacement. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2015 (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.