Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3 edit

Template:Uw-imagepermission 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 relist to Nov 20. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Less effective than and redundant to {{di-no permission-notice}}. If a image is tagged with a free license but with no proof of permission by the copyright holder, it should be tagged for speedy deletion criterion F11 ({{Npd}}), which uses {{di-no permission-notice}} to notify users. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if the file is listed through another process, such as WP:PUF or WP:FFD, then the di-notice is inappropriate, as it wouldn't be a CSD. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that is not correct since the CSD criterion would still apply; the file would still have no proof of permission. Also, this nominated template is not part of the notification process for either forum just mentioned (FFD or PUF); those templates are {{Fdw}} and {{Fdw-puf}}, respectively. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be an additional template to the FFD and PUF notification templates, indicating why it showed up at FFD or PUF. And if the file is not templated with the CSD, then the user should not have a CSD warning issued, since it is incorrectly warning about the wrong process. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:01, 5 November 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).

Template:Fb team AFC Ann Arbor 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 all. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fb team templates are deprecated, and these are not needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no purpose at all. GiantSnowman 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These seem to be hardcoded instances of Template:Fb team and could possibly be eligible for WP:T3. The same could probably be said for this list, though I haven't had the time to review each one of those templates. — Jkudlick tcs 12:12, 8 November 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).

Cricket templates for deletion 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 mixed. There is no consensus for the "100 caps" templates, but this entire nomination turned into one gigantic mess towards the end. The only clear consensus was to delete the last three templates listed. NPASR for the 100 caps templates, though I suggest renominations should have a specific theme (only 100-caps templates, for example). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are garbage. They devalue the wiki pages of some cricketers due to overload of pointless templates. These templates are already discussed here, here & here and the current consensus is delete, which is unanimous. Regarding last 2nd template, there is already a template for average 40. The last template is not specific to a particular format (Test or ODI or T20I). Regarding Template:All-rounders-Double, there is already Template:All-rounders for test players. Pinging SpacemanSpiff Harrias Dweller Jenks24 Joseph2302 Lugnuts for their votes here. Chris8924 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which should be removed. Be careful on that fourth one, it appears the author made it twice, once with a comma in 10,000 and once without. The only one to be nominated so far is the one with the comma, so * {{Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career}} should remain nommed here. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have stricken these templates from the nomination since they are indeed duplicate submissions. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As with the ones I voted on yesterday, WP:LISTCRUFT and not sensible, encyclopedic ways to categorise players. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They all fail WP:NAVBOX because they don't have an article discussing the topic. Jenks24 (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above votes. 117.192.168.221 (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listcruft. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all they become pointless after sometimesrini (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all EXCEPT 100 caps templates (see below) AND Template:All-rounders-Double, which is almost ten years old. I'm not sure why it was nominated. (There has been some disagreements as to what the parameters of Template:ODI All-rounders should be, but not with this template. In any case, that wouldn't be a reason to delete it.) I can only assume it was included in error - contrary to the nominator's claim, there was no consensus to delete it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. (This list at Cricinfo has 1000 runs/100 wickets; the template preserves the ratio while making sure it is not too unwieldy for navigational purposes.) StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR change the parameters of all-rounders template OR change the title, because it is not a All-rounders template. Out of 18 players in the list, only 7 are all-rounders, i.e., 40%. The rest 60% are just bowlers. The same bowlers are in 300 wickets bowlers template too. Change the parameters to 3500runs,200wkts for the All-rounders OR delete All-rounders in the title. Chris8924 (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone suggested 3000 runs/150 wickets on the project talk page - that's fair enough, but that should be a discussion for changing the template, not a reason for deletion. (And it would be silly to keep a ODI all-rounder template but not this one.) StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As i said already, the title is not what the template is. Repeat- It is not a All-rounders template. I am in favor of a statistic for all-rounders, just like there is 10,000runs for batsmen & 300wkts for bowlers. Before nominating here, i have gone through every template after they are nominated in Template Overload discussion & found that all templates are garbage. I have just gone through Template:ODI All-rounders as well, but i am sorry, your argument is invalid. In Template:ODI All-rounders, except 1 player, every one in it are all-rounders, whereas as Template:All-rounders-Double is dominated with bowlers. Please change the parameters of it OR change the title, i will remove its nomination. Further discussion on it is unnecessary. Chris8924 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "further discussion on it is unnecessary"? We're supposed to discuss and reach a consensus. The template has been around in its current form for ten years! Now, certainly in that time players have achieved the feat who are not normally classified as all-rounders - Johnson, Vettori, Kumble, and of course Harbhajan Singh - but that is not a reason for deletion; that would be WP:RECENTISM. In any case, this simply means the discussion at Template talk:All-rounders-Double#Request for 3000/300 template (from nine years ago) should be revisited. In fact, such a template was created, named the "All-rounders-Triple" and was deleted via this discussion. Seven years ago. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing much to discuss on it, is there? Either the "title" or the "parameters" needs to be changed. As i already said, i (& most of us) are in favor of a all-rounders template. There you go, i removed its nomination. Counting on you for the changes required in the template. I already checked the list, 3500runs & 200wkts is fine to eliminate bowlers from it. Chris8924 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. I don't think we ought to massage the parameters until we get the result that we want. But the 3000/300 template would still include Warne, Vaas, and Vettori. In any case, I am happy to propose something, but I will need to wait for consensus before making the change. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Vettori's test average is actually higher than Martin Guptill's... StAnselm (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did i miss anything there? (ignoring the request made in 2006) Who said anything about 3000/300 here??? 300wkts will include bowlers, & eliminates the best all-rounders Sir Garry Sobers & Kallis. As i said already, 3500/200 is fine Chris8924 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that you have a fixation with 1000/100 2000/200 3000/300. You should understand that, when there is a template for 10,000 runs for batsmen, there is a reason why there is no template for 1,000 wkts for bowlers. News flash: Runs ≠ wkts OR 10 runs ≠ 1 wkt Chris8924 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say it was a fixation. The ODI template has 3000/150 - see also the discussion here. In any case, once again - this needs a discussion and consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after all this, I'm embarrassed to say that the 3000/300 template does exist; it is called Template:All-rounders, and it is included in all the relevant articles. And no, we certainly don't need both templates. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has become a joke now. And its embarrassing to see 2 same templates. Renominating 2000/200 template, since there is already 3000/300 template. I hope you are changing your stance from "Delete all except all-rounders double" to 'Delete all'. Chris8924 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete Template:All-rounders-Double. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except 100 or caps template 100+ are considered to be achievement in tests if we create articles on that ...then we can't sort out players which is only possible in shape of template or discuss it separately so we can have a complete discussion with all wikiproject cricket members GreenCricket (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the caps templates is that, unlike all the others, cricketers are split up into countries. It might, for example, be better to put them all in one template and make it 150+ for manageability. On, the other hand, "appearances for one's country" are obviously country-related, so I will agree and say keep all 100 caps templates. This is becoming a trainwreck nomination. StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no use of a caps template. They just overload templates. Soon, someone will create templates for 200 Or 300 ODI caps or 100 T20I caps which really overloads templates. If a template is necessary, create a new one Template:Players with 100 or more Test caps. Chris8924 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 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).

Template:Da-delete1 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 Userfy. Creator is happy to keep the template, and everyone else is happy to not have it in template space. Primefac (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded template, dupes {{Uw-delete1}}. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template I use. I don't like the {{uw-delete1}} or several of the similar templates, so I made my own. If you delete them, I'll just recreate them, possibly under different names. - Denimadept (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Denimadept: What you just said sounds intent to circumnavigate creation protection if it were ever placed on this title, given that Wikipedia respects WP:CONSENSUS and if this template is recreated after it is deleted, it would then be eligible for WP:G4 deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (as a subpage of User:Denimadept) without leaving a redirect per the discussion below with the template's creator. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Steel1943: Steel, a redirect makes no sense to me, as the user "don't like" the text in the target uw-delete1. A pointy template like this should not exist in template space. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's a substitution template, it should never be transcluded. Being untranscluded is normal. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, @Steel1943:. You substitute all that set of uw-* vandalism templates. Is that all he's complaining about? And yes, I'll "circumnavigate" what @Sam Sailor: is saying if needed. It's not a consensus thing. It's a thing where I'll use my own vandalism templates even if I have to manually cut and paste them, as the equivalent uw- templates have attributes I don't like. And I see no purpose to discussing why I don't like them because honestly, life's too short to deal with drama on WP. If I had my druthers, I'd revert every one of the relevant uw- templates back to the state I copied them from. I could recreate them in my own private tree, but I like the idea of letting other people use them. The only place they're mentioned is on my User page. - Denimadept (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no immediate problem with moving {{Da-delete1}} from template space to user space without leaving a redirect, after all the actual difference between it and {{Uw-delete1}} is hair-splittingly minimal. I do see a problem with users creating individual templates in template space with the sole reason that they don't like the existing template. This one should never had been made in template space with the obvious factual errors by its "creator" of adding it to Category:Templates used by Twinkle and Category:Standardised user warning templates. If moved to user space or recreated there as user say they intend to, make sure to exclude these categories. I take note that the user argues that they don't like the consensus-build equivalent, and don't see a purpose in discussing why. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Denimadept: Thanks for making your intent of this template's use somewhat clearer (though I still don't agree with your "circumnavigate" stance since if it involves putting this template back into the template namespace, the "creation protection/G4" issues still apply.) Anyways, I'll change my vote accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: yes, the idea was that some of the level 1 uw- templates are too friendly. I include my signature on talk page submissions, so I don't need my uid at the beginning of the template. I'm unaware of the Twinkle and such cats. I suppose I copied them w/o thinking about it. I'll get rid of those. After all, I don't use Twinkle. - Denimadept (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any categories or mention of Twinkle. It must be included by something else. - Denimadept (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Denimadept: I took care of some of the issues you ran across with this edit, including removing the Twinkle template. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Great, thanks. I don't see that bit of code in the other four templates, so maybe things are okay now. - Denimadept (talk) 04:20, 5 November 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).

Template:Vg year interwiki 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 after ensuring that information is in Wikidata. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links are maintained on Wikidata. CAS222222221 (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, delete per nominator (subst if those particular interwikis aren't on Wikidata yet). --Izno (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the template creator. This template is no longer needed thanks to Wikidata (just make sure are the interwiki links are set first in Wikidata). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:24, 4 November 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).

Template:Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in Test Cricket 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. Primefac (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. We also have centuries lists linking players with maximum centuries and this is a subset of that. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 3 November 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).

Template:Batsmen who have scored centuries against all Test playing nations in ODI cricket 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. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. We also have centuries lists linking players with maximum centuries and this is a subset of that. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 3 November 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).

Template:WPBannerMeta/locwarning 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 keep. Accidental blanking reverted. This is a warning which is displayed when a WikiProject banner isn't placed on a talk page and is transcluded by its parent template, {{WPBannerMeta}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template namespace page has been blanked. Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input and explanation. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like I might have inadvertently changed something (2 years ago?) when I was trying to figure out how to create templates -- if so, my apologies. To be honest, at this point I haven't the faintest recollection of looking at it, much less changing it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be reverted back to the last edit by MSGJ. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, I realize I was referring to the music theory template, not the one in discussion. The one in discussion affects the theory template but that is okay, delete it, I want to create new templates anyway. --Xavier (talk) 14:47, 6 November 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).

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk 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 relist to Nov 20. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template namespace page has been blanked, the corresponding edit summary read "remove for now per WP:BRD". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any advantage in deleting because a blank notice is treated the same as a deleted notice by the editnotice system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Well, the software probably skips a few steps, including fetching the edit notice, if there's no edit notice, if that's significant. Alakzi (talk) 20:57, 11 November 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).

Template:Collab-gaming 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 move to project space. Alakzi (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been blanked, the reason given was "CotM is closed down". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not sure whether to let it be deleted or have it be retained as historical. Maybe more input might determine that. GamerPro64 01:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
whatever happens, the same should happen with Template:CurrentGCOTW. I could see either deleting it, or moving it to project space and marking it as historical. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 3 November 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).

Template:Child taxa/Pliciloricidae 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 keep for now. The parent template is no longer in use and has been deleted, but the subpages will be temporarily retained until it's clear that this data is no longer needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used on any pages and looks empty. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_3&oldid=1138533330"