Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5 edit

Template:SCDiamonds 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template comparable to recently deleted template "Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds"; pls see TfD discussion, the group is listed both in the article it links to, and a list linked to the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 5 November 2016 (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:Calendar, clock, date and time computing templates 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 merge with Template:Date and time templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox seems rather unnecessary. The digital clocks are mostly in userspace (and already in Category:Clock templates), the analog clocks are likely to be deleted soon (they're at TFD), and the "date and time" section is a duplicate of {{date templates}}. In other words: no useful navigation that wasn't there before it was created. Primefac (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The analog clocks have been deleted, and the template has been updated accordingly. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be made of the templates that are linked here, but not in {{date templates}}? Should the other template be expanded? – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with {{date templates}} to make {{date and time templates}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems a merge is generally supported and is sensible. Discussion should focus on what the result of a merge should be. Do we merge into the nominated template to create a navbox or merge into Template:Date templates to create something for "see also" sections?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:22, 5 November 2016 (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:Semi-wikibreak (simple) 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple) with Template:Semi-wikibreak.
These two templates are redundant to each other; and the parent template's longer wording is tautologous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:13, 5 November 2016 (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:Handball in the United States 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete tempalte by WP:SOCK editor. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:12, 5 November 2016 (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:Rma 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article, and has very few advantages over the standard <Ref>...</Ref> machinery. Pppery 21:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CITE's admonition not to change reference formats without consensus and per the lack of any other obvious way to obtain this format on the article in question, Phineas Gage. The right way to do this would have been to obtain consensus on Talk:Phineas Gage to change its reference format, then to edit the article to use whatever other format is agreed on, then to delete the orphaned template. Doing it this way instead amounts to a backdoor attempt to go around the local article consensus. And if these templates were to be deleted, then it would still be necessary to obtain consensus on Gage for a new format and to edit the article into another format, so you're not saving any steps by doing it in the wrong order. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreeing with the above. There has already been really extensive discussion and an RFC about the citation style used on Phineas Gage and the design of and reasons for these templates, see the talk archives. --Mirokado (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What D.E. and Mirokado said. Everything that's now standard practice started out as an oddity in an isolated article. EEng 14:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but noting that the most recent RfC at Talk:Phineas Gage ended with a consensus that the formatting of the page, when dealt with in edit mode, is a mess, so there is actually something of a local page consensus against keeping this template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the love of all that’s holy, either chuck this template into the abyss or someone better snow close this fast. Phineas Gage is just dreadful to look at; there are more than 250 instances of "See TfD" and 30 odd "being considered for deletion…. to help reach a consensus." messages in the article. - NQ (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, Pppery could withdraw it. More than enought time has been wasted on this already, including a bizarre edit war [1] in which he insists on the article remaining blighted so that 2000 readers each day have to each look at 500 notifications of this "important deletion discussion" as they read the article. EEng 16:08, 9 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-Interior-FWS 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-Interior-USBR 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-OWI 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-USDA-ARS 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-USDA-NRCS 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (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:PD-USGov-WPA 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be moved to commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2016 (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:Angola women's national handball team U-17 roster 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old, unused, and all red links Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2016 (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:Anti-Federalism In the United States 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2016 (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:Apayao image map 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates Template:Apayao labelled map Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unused and duplicate indeed. Although at the time of creation, I had thought it would be better than the old labelled map since the new one is an image map, clickable on all parts of the territories. I have no objections if it is deleted, as it does not appear practical for a small map. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (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:Arabe class destroyer 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and appears to duplicate navigation found in Template:Kaba class destroyers Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2016 (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:Argentina portals by province 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and basically all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2016 (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:Armenia in the Eurovision Young Dancers 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2016 (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:Armenian Olympic Champions 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused with no parent article Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2016 (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:As browse 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2016 (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:Artists of the 2011 Festival Internacional Cervantino 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused or single use templates, should be merged with an article or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2016 (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:American politics/party colours/ 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused, and redundant to using {{party colour}} or one of the other election table templates. Note that some of the templates with under 10 uses were replaced by me in articles. Frietjes (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2016 (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:Spam-request 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 Snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 20:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Spam-request with Template:Advert.
Fairly obvious. Spam-request goes into more detail about linkspam, but Advert only mentions "external links" once. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge: These have different purposes. The {{Advert}} template is to tag an article as having a promotional tone. It mentions links, but that is not its primary focus. In contrast, {{spam-request}} is specifically for tagging the presence of linkspam. They are different, and therefore should be kept separate. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Linkspam is a discrete issue which can sometimes but not always accompany other forms of promotionalism. Ofter it can be dealt with very easily, and [possible deletion of the article is unlikely if it is the only problem. Cleaning it is a good job for relative beginners. Promotionalism in general is often much more complicated, frequently requiring major rewriting or even deletion. Dealing with it properly occupies a good deal of the time of some of our most experienced editors. . DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The templates serve obviously different purposes. Advert is for content generally while Spamrequest is for linkspam. James (talk/contribs) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the logic from the above oppose !voters. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the reasons given above. zazpot (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Containing "link spam masquerading as content" is ≠ to being "written link an advertisement".— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fairly obvious proposal is misguided about usage per above. Widefox; talk 10:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose two completely separate templates. No reason whatsoever to merge! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (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:Infobox Utility clamp 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hardcoded template that is not used on any pages. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 5 November 2016 (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:Infobox YouTube Personality 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 Virgin Radio Bangladesh, then delete per A7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hardcoded template that is not used on any pages. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a misplaced article, see Virgin Radio for other similar articles. It should be moved to Virgin Radio Bangladesh. -- GB fan 10:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2. I should disclose that I previously declined a request to speedy delete this under WP:CSD#T2. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, would be a duplicate of Virgin Radio if it were a valid article. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • move, per GB fan, unless you believe it does not stand a chance in a eventual AfD nomination (it is a poor article, but I guess it may stand). not-so-speedy delete as test, per Redrose64, as second choice. note: I also met this one while deciding to delete or not, I gave it a pass to the next pair of eyes, because as Redrose64 says the rationale was not good. - Nabla (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2016 (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:E-Boat War Badge with Diamonds 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A template based on an obscure German WWII era decoration. The article Fast Attack Craft War Badge lists these recipients and this is sufficient. For a TfD on a comparative template, pls see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Template:Combined Pilots-Observation_Badge_with_Diamonds (the template was deleted). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I keep coming across them randomly; in general, a lot of articles on highly decorated German personnel seem to be "over-templated", almost leading to clutter at the bottom of the page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2016 (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:Arrow ratings and Template:The Flash ratings 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template was originally created for transclusion at List of Arrow episodes, per addition edit, then the edit was reverted by myself due to incorrect formatting. Once the template was fixed, the templated was reinstated by the creating editor, which was then reverted by another editor. This means that the template is no longer transcluded to any articles. Discussion exists at User talk:Brojam § Ratings template. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:07, 5 November 2016 (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/2016_November_5&oldid=1078532890"