Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17 edit

Template:404 error 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 procedural close. Userboxes belong at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 05:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:404 error (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Patent nonsense. Also not used on Wikipedia's 404 page. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 21:18, 17 April 2017 (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:Loki Entertainment 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) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loki Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't keep navboxes for games produced by a company, as it's a non-defining trait and the games have next to no relation between each other. Specifically in this case, the publisher creates ports (versions of a game for a specific platform) and isn't even the main producer of the games. czar 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, tangential association. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (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:Caparica 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) 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being unused is fixed easily by adding it to the three articles listed in the template, and I did just that. So, keep, unless some other reason is provided - do you have any? (yes, I am Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2017 (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:Capitals of Brazil 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) 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Capitals of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if it were used it's a total WP:NENAN since it only has three links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:49, 19 April 2017 (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:Capitals of medieval Arab realms 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) 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Capitals of medieval Arab realms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous TfD whose outcome was "rename". Pings to those participants who aren't already notified: Cplakidas and Presidentman. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2017 (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:Card game categories 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) 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Card game categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (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:BocaRiverTable 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 Relisted on 2017 April 29 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Warrington - 1973–74 Captain Morgan Trophy winners 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warrington - 1973–74 Captain Morgan Trophy winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating this per WP:NENAN. Creating navboxes for the winning squads of minor rugby league competitions will just cause template creep. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First-grade trophy. Not sure I really need to add more, but the fact that it was so short-lived makes it all the more notable.Fleets (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the notability of the article – see my reply to DynamoDegsy below. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the Captain Morgan Trophy only ran for one season, it was competed for by the top sides of the era, and the competition is notable enough for its own article, so surely the winners (and the runners-up Featherstone Rovers) "deserve" a template? Best reagrds DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the article itself, or even the squads for the final being listed there - it's the navboxes which are excessive. I think it's fine to use navboxes for the winning squads of major tournaments, as they are often defining points of a player's career, but we have to draw a line somewhere, as overusing them just creates excessive clutter at the bottom of articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you have landed on the wrong side of the line then. Were this to be the Emirates Cup then I could take your point, but a first-team trophy, with top flight sides in competition, during the regular season, then I really cannot understand your raising this as potential for deletion. By inference or otherwise, defining this as clutter does not put you in the best light I'm afraid, but thats Just My Opinion.Fleets (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that it would set a bad precedent. Imagine what an article like Martin Dermott would look like if you included templates for squads of every Regal Trophy / Premiership / county cup final appearance - you'd end up with 20+ navboxes just for his Wigan career. It's complete overkill, and they cease to become useful for navigational purposes. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can begin understand your reasoning, but you would be omitting the other portion of your reasoning there, that there would be players who had good solid careers, and that a final appearance was a defining point. Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying you can't put forward the half that supports your position.Fleets (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic you would end up creating them for everyone. Show me an example of another sports project on the Wiki that keeps team navboxes for such minor domestic competitions and I'll gladly re-consider. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is asking you to reconsider, that line you were looking to put in the sand, it is far to close to the sea and it is going to be washed away. In this instance I could go even further and say that this line that you're trying to draw was already in the water as first-grade, first team, in-season and a one-season only comp. To question it's existence is quite baffling.Fleets (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At what point have I questioned its existence? I've made my position quite clear (established by previous consensus here). If you disagree, that's fine, but it's more helpful if you do so using policy or examples of consensus, and not constantly responding with such flippant remarks. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not seeking to remove this template from existence, than I retract any and all statements as I have misinterpreted your position. Unfortunately with that link you are comparing apples and pears. One of the examples was a potential Southampton navbox who were then in the third tier of English football, competing in a tier 3 and 4 trophy. The others were links to the wider sporting entity of the football club Fenerbache, again rugby league is downtrodden, but it is not Turkish volleyball and basketball. Yes they would be examples of consensus, but across a narrow field, and certainly should not be applied here, they could be the beginnings of a position, but certainly not one of strength. The strength of my comments were in direct proportion to the ludicrous nature of this template being brought up for discussion, but that's Just My Opinion.Fleets (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm ok with keeping this, but the runner up templates are clearly not notable (for any tournament). Mattlore (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points… the navigation templates don't seem to work in the Wikipedia Android app, nor the Google browser for Android… at least not on my Samsung phone, so no clutter there, and if there are concerns regarding clutter using standard PC (Apple?) internet browsers on desktops/laptops, then the navigation templates could be wound up in a "{{Navbox |listclass = hlist", e.g. George Carmichael. For once I have to disagree with Mattlore, I believe that most (if not all) references would list the teams of both the winners, and runners-up of a tournament final. Best reagrds. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2017 (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:Dark Horse tracks 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 Relisted on 2017 April 29 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dark Horse tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Selfsubst 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; deleted as G7 by Amalthea (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is apparently no longer used; no transclusions and insource:selfsubst shows only the usage of Template:Selfsubst/now string in some sensitive pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I forgot about this little piece of template magic. I wrote those templates to automatize versioning of popups -- but removed that transclusion myself from the source in [1].
Anyway, I'm fine with it being deleted, would do so myself -- but what do you mean with "insource:selfsubst", Jo-Jo Eumerus? I'm not aware that selfsubst or any of it's subpages are used anymore
Amalthea 11:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amalthea: "insource" is a prefix in the search function. It can be used to find text in the page source, such as in functions within a template. Useful if you want to find out whether a a parser function or switch calls a particular template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. FTR, both {{Selfsubst}} and {{Selfsubst/_language/js}} *are* currently in use in all the pages that copied popups.js at the time, e.g. User:UncleDouggie/Gadget-popups.js. Test it: Press edit on that page and 'Show changes'.
If you delete the selfsubst templates then please be sure to a) delete all the subpages! and b) *start* with {{Selfsubst/now string}}
Otherwise I have no idea what will end up in those pages if they see edits. Substing a non-existant template will instead cause no changes at all, which is what you want.
Amalthea 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (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:Checkip/Preload 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Checkip/Preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer employed on Template:Checkip Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still in use on the "tag" link of {{Checkip}}. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. Is there a reason why it has to be in a subpage? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can preload any template as far as I know, but why keep them under separate names? – Train2104 (t • c)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, not transcluded, but is used as indicated above. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (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:Checkuser/Preload 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Checkuser/Preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer used by Template:Checkuser apparently Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still in use on the "tag" link of {{Checkuser}}. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. Is there a reason why it has to be in a subpage? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why is it a problem having it as a subpage? Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, not transcluded, but is used as indicated above. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (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:Colorado State University presidents 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colorado State University presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links, fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is three links, but that is still not enough. Delete....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I added a couple more links. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Navbox now has more than four (4) links which is enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:01, 18 April 2017 (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).