Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 13 January 15 >

January 14 edit

Template:Uw-hijacking 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered by "disruptive editing" so we don't need this poorly worded, almost entirely unused template. There is no "highjacking" policy so this isn't backed by anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. Better templates can be used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete enough of these user warnings already. Surely we don't need one for every eventuality. Nigej (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazingly, for the first time ever I've come across this today: Rob Powell, see history. Such is life. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accusing someone of disruptive editing is often too vague, and if there's a specific warning template to tell them what exactly they did wrong, then that's good. You wouldn't think that people could be stupid or cheeky enough to hijack pages, but they do that all the time, so this isn't really some overly narrow niche either. The template was created three years ago and I can see four uses, all in the last two months, from two different editors (pinging one of them). – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the ping, Uanfala. I like this template, though I agree the wording could use a little work. It's specific to a surprisingly common issue, much more so than the generic "disruptive editing" warning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it so badly written that deleting and writing a new template fro the ground up for this issue seems preferable. Highjacking is a very loaded term that strongly implies extreme bad faith on the part of the warned user, as opposed to just poor/uninformed editing. So, I'm not saying this isn't a thing, but I don't think this template is at all the correct response and we probably shouldn't be using the term "highjacking" at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword if necessary. I've used it a couple of times (that's actually how I noticed it was up for deletion), and there are other occasions when I would have used it if I had known about the template. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (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).

NICTD 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/NICTD and Module:Adjacent stations/Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (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 Russian federal subject 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 2019 January 29. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2019 (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:Mli 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. Valid reasons were given for getting rid of the module coding as unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Mli, Template:Mlix, Template:Module link and Template:Mlx.
{{mlx}} and {{mlix}} have the same function, {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} should also have the same function ({{module link}} shouldn't have the code tags it currently has, as {{mlx}} is meant for that). We should keep the documentations pages of {{mlix}} and {{mli}} as they are more complete but we should keep {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} as the names are shorter and follow similar naming to the {{tl}} family of templates. I'm also proposing that {{mlx}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link}} and {{module link}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link|code=yes}} to take advantage of Module:Module link. The module provides several advantages including allowing for an unlimited number to parameters and removing Module: and module: from the input. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge but oppose module as module creep: Removing double namespace prefixes seems to me to be out of scope for this template (and besides, {{tl}} doesn't do it), and likewise a module isn't warranted for just unlimited parameters (that should use my recent enhancement to Module:For nowiki or Module:Separated entries). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the templates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (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:Animal Rights Barnstar 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. The lack of use after 3+ years tips the scales ever so slightly into a weak consensus to delete. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is unused and this is not a barnstar; it is a picture with a caption. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some good animal rights articles on Wikipedia deserve commendation. Of course, NOTHING REQUIRES commendation and recognition, but good contributions are important. An additional concern on internal processes within Wikipedia may be what appears to widespread 'rogue attacks' against topical content of this sort. I oppose deletion of this Barnstar template. Perhaps artistic improvements for this barnstar could be ssuggested. MaynardClark (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MaynardClark: This template is not used at all and I found this from Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates/1. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good sleuthing. Perhaps some good sights deserve the template. I have never awarded a template. Should I? MaynardClark (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstars and awards are often substed, hence have no transclusions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, you might find Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Animalrightssymbol.jpg useful for a substituted template like this one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per referenced image search; not being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:29, 14 January 2019 (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:Rugby union in Guam 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 2019 January 29. Primefac (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2019 (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).

Station header 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Intended for use with {{Infobox station}}; they were all created on the same day by a user who has made no other edits. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2019 (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/2019_January_14&oldid=880822045"