Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7 edit

Template:HK-MTR stations 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) 00:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use, except for in documentation and test pages; superseded by {{adjacent stations}}, {{rail color box}}, {{station link}}, {{line link}} and {{rail color}}. The data is now at Module:Adjacent stations/MTR. Jc86035 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2018 (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:Country data Economic Community of West African 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) 00:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken, unused Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I created it to use in 2 articles, but it's not being used now. It may be useful in the future, so I think that it shouldn't be deleted. Anyway, I can make copy paste and if I need it in the future I may create this template again in the future, so it's at your discretion to delete it or not. Greetings. Odemirense (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2018 (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:OCN Saturday-Sunday dramas 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 2018 August 23. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (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:Anarion_family_tree 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 2018 August 15. Primefac (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2018 (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:Archdeacons of Scarborough, ON 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 2018 August 15. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (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:Muhammad's ancestors2 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) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 with Template:Muhammad's ancestors.
To fix redundancy. Advocate retaining the ahnentafel format of prior Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 rather than the text paragraph format of the destination template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: Fear of redundancy is justified. But I want to clear up the reason for making two templates. Template:Muhammad's ancestors is about Muhammad's "fathers" or paternal grand-fathers, where Arabs cared most. It's showing how Muhammed is related to other Arab tribes. While Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 is about Muhammad's family-tree, and how his "fathers" and "mothers" are related to each other.--Maher27777 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'd say leave the redundant one and then make viewers navigate the full scheme according to any personal preferences, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2018 (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).

RC Narbonne and US Dax squad 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 no consensus with NPASR, though I think doing so individually would be more appropriate given how one template appears to meet the "precedent" minimum of 4 links while the other only has two. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are navboxes for players for French rugby union teams. However, both these templates now have a vast majority of red links (just 2 and 4 blue links respectively), and these teams no longer participate in a fully professional rugby union competition, meaning current players won't be deemed notable as per WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. The majorty of players will have played at a higher level (the season before) and these two clubs are highly likely to return to Pro D2 in the coming years, it seems unnecessary to delete and then restore the info boxes of the teams relegated and promoted into Pro D2 each summer. Skeene88 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Skeene88:, the point of a navbox is to allow navigation between related articles. For these two templates, there are almost no articles to navigate to, so they don't serve much of a purpose. It has nothing to do with the team returning to Pro D2 (and your assertion that they are "highly likely" to do so seems completely baseless), but with the fact that none of the players have articles. So there won't be any unnecessary deletion and recreation based on promotion, it will be based on someone actually creating a large number of new articles to make these navboxes viable. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI : next year, 4 links will be ″blue″ on US Dax squad template : Felipe Berchesi, Arnaud Héguy, Toki Pilioko, Nemia Soqeta. It's more than last year/actual template, with 3 players. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daxipedia:, template updated to reflect this and count updated in comment above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 08:11, 7 August 2018 (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).

User:Barbara (WVS)/tv template 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. Creator is okay with deletion. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an abandoned test template, creates WP:REDNOT categories Le Deluge (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the original closing comment, I've provided the correct link and reopened the discussion because I also came across the page in a round of REDNOT cleanup. That said, given that it's in userspace instead of templatespace the discussion may more appropriately belong at MFD rather than here — but I agree that because it's creating redlinked article-rating categories for a Wikiproject that doesn't exist to be rating articles, it needs to be either deleted or rewritten to strip its category-generating code. The categorization project can't have kludge like this polluting the redlinked category tracker in a permanent and unresolvable way — either the categories need to come off the page, or the page needs to go if that's not possible. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is REDNOT religiously followed in user-space? I've my doubts and hence, the relisting........
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 08:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the relister's comment, yes, we do have to pay some attention to WP:REDNOT issues in userspace — not because it causes problems with the page, however, but because it causes unwanted kludge on Special:WantedCategories. So even in userspace, pages still shouldn't be declaring or artificially generating non-existent categories — the wanted categories tool must always be 100 per cent resolvable at all times, with no exceptions that the people working on category maintenance aren't allowed to deal with in one form or another. People who work with that tool are under no obligation to just accept that the list will remain polluted with permanent speedbumps that can never be cleared off the list — if it's there, then we have to do whatever is necessary to make it go away. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: Well WP:REDNOT is explicit "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category". Actually, userspace is even stronger, as WP:USERNOCAT bans most kinds of blue-link categories from userspace, never mind red links.Le Deluge (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the template. I created it for an article in the Signpost and don't plan on using it in the future. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:23, 15 August 2018 (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:License of reference edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless clutter that doesn't belong in articles. The licensing of a reference ("CC BY 3.0" vs "CC BY, version apparently not specified", vs ...) is something that belongs in Wikidata (and can be found by following the DOI links), not Wikipedia. Freely-accessible ressources can be marked with |doi-access=free, or are automatically marked if PMC identifiers are present.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom, rarely used, so apparently not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2018 (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:Ella Chen 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) 01:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates don't include enough articles. If you remove the "TV dramas" and "Films" sections (which I found totally unnecessary for a singer's template) from the Ella Chen one, that template is left with only 3 articles. Beyoncetan 2 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Filmographies should not be listed in singer's navigational templates, leaving not enough articles to navigate between. Aspects (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2018 (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/2018_August_7&oldid=856262818"