Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1 edit

Template:MG 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No Consensus -FASTILY (TALK) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MG/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be some sort of method of grouping templates together and assigning "ownership" of them. Should just group templates together using categories and ownership should not be implied. WOSlinker (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – This template makes no attempt to assign authorship or ownership. It merely allows experienced editors to volunteer to assist other users with the use of certain complex templates. There is certainly nothing sinister about Template:MG. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing about ownership, better than categories (easy to notice) Bulwersator (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{maintained}} is a much better template. There doesn't seem to be a wikiproject attached to this MG thing either. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Newm 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Trebbien - is it possible to add documentation? And it sounds like duplicate of {{Talkback}} Bulwersator (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, it appears to move conversation threads to template space (see here), which is not a great idea. we should keep talk page threads in talk space. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Noarticletext 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noarticletext preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a preload template. Prior to MediaWiki v 1.17, it was impossible to add categories or documentation to these things. This template definitely predates 1.17. Preload templates are used by article wizards to add a basic framework, so I expect that there's an article wizard somewhere that uses this as a blank article starting point. Article wizards will not show up in the "what links here" listing. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thamk you. That saves my having to explain it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 1 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Geograph 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This tag is used for images which should now be uploaded to Commons directly. I feel that as it is no longer used on any files it's possibly obselete. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 4#Template:Geograph, "The result of the discussion was no consensus", discussion there closed on 18 December 2011. Has the situation changed since then? — Richardguk (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was little participation there. IMO it should have been relisted. I didn't find Thincat's arguments in the previous discussion particularly compelling: in particular, it remains the case that the only reason this has tranclusions is because it's linked to from {{UK image sources}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unused (without transclusions) but it should be also orphaned - but there are also links from Category namespace. Maybe we should move "Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in X" categories to commons? Bulwersator (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Shahrukh Khan 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep; concerns resolved. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shahrukh Khan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Actors should not have templates which include their list of work and awards. Shahid • Talk2me 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such Templates are needed for every Actors, because we can put such templates in any of their movies, so the viewers wouldn't require to go to their page (the respective celebrity) here Shahrukh Khan, just to know the name of the movies featuring those celebrities. Again if template of actors is not important then why is this for -> Template:Farhan Akhtar films? Isn't Farhan Akhtar an actor.


But I m not being a administrator, I can't help myself.. OK if it's nominated to be deleted then do whatever you want keeping in mind my discussion.
Radhamadhab Sarangi —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic keep, but if it is kept, edit it a LOT for one, the color scheme has to go. I have good vision (well, with contacts in), and I can't read the template because of the coloring. Also, the list of awards isn't necessary. That just can go in the actor's article. I'm going to clean it up a bit right now. If you reply here, please {{lmatb}} — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Creature Features 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No Consensus -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creature Features (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These movies were one time only part of a movie festival. I don't see the need for a template. William 02:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this template is a navbox — it aids in navigation between related articles (such as different movies in a series). Since the movies in the series have their own articles, as does the parent topic, this is most definitely not a case of WP:NENAN. If you reply here, {{lmatb}} — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_1&oldid=1078568688"