Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31 edit

Template:PD-Zimbabwe 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) 02:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-BulgarianGov 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) 02:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-Brazil-exempt 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) 02:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-BosnianGov 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) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-BY-exempt 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) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-Azerbaijan 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) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-Algeria 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) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-AR-Movie 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) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-AB-exempt 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) 02:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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-Tanzania 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) 02:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 22:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per my comment above. Not used and belongs on commons; would have been better if batch nominated; we can't just speculatively create said PD templates unless they are used under the names of every political entity that has existed just in case it is used. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:Meyers 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 subst and delete.. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded template created by banned user with LTA case. Replace all transclusions with {{cleanup|reason=Copy-pasted and translated from public domain German encyclopedia.}} KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • replace/delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:LUL line label 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 converting to either {{rail-interchange}} or {{rail color box}} as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty, but only used in six articles. MOS is against usage of background colours under text in prose; should be replaced with {{rail-interchange}} in tables and regular links elsewhere, and then userfied. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be replaced with {{rail color box}}, if that's preferable, but I don't think it's usually used in UK articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I don't agree with the MOS on this issue but I'm not going to contest deletion. It was nice while it lasted. Cnbrb (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace/delete, bad for accessibility. Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 31 January 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:NPOVexception 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 T2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason there should be exceptions on articles from following WP:NPOV. Unused and undocumented. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to the following version:

and then move to {{cleanup-commentary}} without a redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as T2. No articles are exempt from WP:NPOV Pppery 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Clarification: I created the template specifically because Wikipedia:Top 25 Report had blatant POV, slanderous, and hurtful statements (they were hyper-partisan and very offensive, and several editors agreed with me). I was convincingly told that because the page was outside mainspace, NPOV did not apply. However, because many viewers would not know this and think this hyper-partisanship was actually Wikipedia's voice, I created this template and proposed it to be used on the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template title is misleading; comments are better directed at talk pages; this template unnecessarily politicises articles. --Tom (LT) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not notifying the reader of partisian commentary on non-mainspace articles (as in Wikipedia:Top 25 Report) will do more harm. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:15, 7 February 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:Dave Audé 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. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Producers and mixers do not get their own navboxes like this. Take away the songs that he only produced and did nothing else on, and you only have two links, thus violating WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Dave Audé has his own discography page, and also had a significant role in at least one mix of each of the four songs listed in the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the number of links justifies preserving this template for ease of navigation for interested readers. --Tom (LT) 00:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Meets the five criteria listed in the WP:NAVBOX guideline. WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 23:33, 5 February 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:Plume 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) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to convey any readily-apparent meaning.

Content is: <span title="Symbol used for writing an article">[[File:Nuvola apps ksig horizonta.png{{subst:!}}30px{{subst:!}}link={{subst:!}}alt=Symbol used for writing an article]]</span>

Renders as:  

Not linked to from any help, MOS, or similar documentation page. Not in any valid category, and has no project tag on its talk page. Has only 116 transclusions after almost four years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as having no obvious purpose. Even the lead tells us to prefer other methods for referencing... Its use in Dreyfus affair § Sources looks pretty but adds no functionality. (In fact that article's referencing style is horribly confusing and complex... but that discussion is for elsewhere.) — Iadmc♫talk  10:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this template is a version of Modèle:plume, used with Modèle:Légende plume to indicate that a source was used in writing the article. It enjoys high usage on the French Wikipedia (17291 transclusions versus 117 here), but I'm not sure if it's useful here.--Auric talk 12:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although its usage is generally discouraged here, it's widely used on the French wikipedia. Deleting this template will add more hoops to jump through for editors translating articles from there. – Uanfala (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, although not widely used here, I'm not sure this template is deprecated. I don't think it is, at least not explicitly. At any rate, it's good that this template exists – in editing wikipedia, as in most other worthwhile things that humans do, there's usually more than one way to go about doing it, and I'd rather we kept it this way. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty sure this template serves no more use than sticking *, †, or ‡ to denote that a source was used in the body of the text. Referring specifically to the Dreyfus article above, I think using † would make the references section much less visually cluttered. No need to make things more complicated. What the French Wikipedia does is largely not our concern. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 10 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_31&oldid=1138373661"