Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27 edit

Template:Infobox Neath Port Talbot electoral ward 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 after replacement, as originally suggested by Frietjes. If there is a fundamental problem with two infoboxes, then feel free to try to merge them. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Neath Port Talbot electoral ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox UK ward}}. Only 39 transclusions. (Deletion may render Category:Wales subdivision infobox templates redundant.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 15 January 2013 (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) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the Neath Port Talbot contain entries for postcode, etc (non-political data)? If this information is available elsewhere (such as on town articles or district council articles) then I don't think the specific template is needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement with {{infobox UK place}} for non-political information and {{infobox UK ward}} for the electoral ward information. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC) keep, since we are not allowed to replace it with two infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's useful to replace the infobox with two; we should use one or the other, as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • see Aberavon, we have two boxes, one for the village and one for the electoral ward. since you say this is not acceptable, I am changing my !vote to keep, and will revert the replacement. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read my comment again. Nowhere did I use the words "not acceptable" or "not allowed". However, Aberavon does not use {{Infobox Neath Port Talbot electoral ward}}, and is about a settlement; virtually all, if not all, of the articles that do use it are specifically about wards, rather than settlements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • read it and re-read it where you said "I don't think it's useful to replace the infobox with two", so since this is not what is being proposed, I propose we keep the infobox and will shortly undo my replacements where I replaced it with two infoboxes. as for Aberavon, it was until I replaced it earlier today. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Aberavon the second infobox is simply unnecessary, as it doesn't really add anything new that wasn't in the first infobox (or that should be in article prose). If they're all like that then this should be deleted. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure Andy would agree with you that we don't need an infobox if the same information is in the prose, or in another table. because, as you know, DBpedia should have no problem parsing the information if it's not in an infobox. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't try to speak for me, about something we've disagreed on elsewhere, It's petty, and you misrepresent me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 17 February 2013 (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:Infobox swansea electoral ward 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 after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox swansea electoral ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox UK ward}}. Only 36 transclusions. (Deletion may render Category:Wales subdivision infobox templates redundant.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 15 January 2013 (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) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (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:Infobox Ghana constituency 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 rewrite as a wrapper for {{infobox constituency}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ghana constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

236 transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} or {{infobox constituency}}, for which it should be a wrapper, if not deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, using {{infobox settlement}} would be basically the same as using {{infobox}} directly in this case, since there are nearly zero fields in common between the two templates. a better choice would be to merge it with {{infobox constituency}} (along with these), but that's not what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after orphaning, or redirect beforehand if that will work. No particular reason to keep parallel templates, but the title isn't hurting anything, so let's not break links in old revisions by deleting it outright. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stage one is making this a wrapper; there's no particular need to discuss what happens until after that's done. FWIW I'd rather not lull people into a false sense of security regarding usability of old article revisions by keeping the old code around afterwards, but that's not relevant anyway until someone's done the work to make this obsolete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2013 (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) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Merge with infobox constituency/make into wrapper/redirect, as required. Obviously, leave the current name as a redirect when done. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, now rewritten as a wrapper for infobox constituency. Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (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:Spa 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is being used to bite newcomers that have little or no edits when they comment in the discussion. users should give anon users the benefit of the doubt rather then tell everyone their comments have not edited outside the discussion.. 209.88.130.87 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its use needs to be carefully considered, especially when adding it to comments from IP users (who may have dynamically moved to a new IP address that happens to have never edited here before). I don't really think it should be deleted, though; instead, users should be informed that they are misusing the template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The template serves a useful purpose, and is used correctly in at least some cases. Just because a template is being misused is no more reason to delete it than to ban cars because some are used in bank robberies. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though perhaps it would be a good idea to have a rule that when used against IP contributors, there must be substantial reason to beleive they're a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, as opposed to just not having edited much before: If a new account's first edit is to an XfD, you can be fairly sure that they're an SPA; but if an IP's "first" edit is to an XfD, it might just mean that some user is editing from a friend's house, or that they have a dynamic IP, or that they've changed ISPs. We see that stuff all the time, like when an IP with only a handful of edits drops by at ANI or VPP to make some very sound point - it just means that their editing experience comes from some other address, not that they have any sinister intentions. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:51, 29 January 2013 (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:GA 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 Withdrawn. It is already automatically replaced with {{ArticleHistory}} after being removed from the Nominations list, and it's required for the GA process. Vacation9 19:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually used on very few pages (Transclusions) and a redundant copy of {{ArticleHistory}}. It makes it more complex for bots to parse GAs as well as it doesn't provide as much detail usually as ArticleHistory. It has no real use, and just makes for more complex bot parsing. Vacation9 19:09, 27 January 2013 (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:Maybe free media 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 withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maybe free media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, this started out as NFUR not needed, which was characterised as a 'drive by' tag, rather than one that helped an issue get fixed So I am starting this deletion thread to get a consensus on need if any for this template? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore {{NFUR not needed}} (i.e. revert the nominator's edits to the template, restoring it to its 2012 state), redirect {{maybe free media}} to {{wrong licence}}. The templates obviously serve different purposes, so it is unclear why they were at some point merged. {{NFUR not needed}} means that it has been demonstrated that a file is free but that it nevertheless has a fair use rationale. {{Maybe free media}} means that it is unclear if the file is free (e.g. a photo from 1920 without information on whether it was published before 1923) which needs additional information from other sources to determine the copyright status. {{Maybe free media}} thus seems to serve the same purpose as {{wrong licence}}. The template might be unused for the moment, but this is only because the nominator has removed it from every page on which it was used (and in the process replaced lots of fair use rationales with {{information}}). The template is added to new files several times a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword. We need only one template that says this. However, we also need a good reminder for placement on files that could benefit from more research. It's not something that needs to be fixed or that indicates a need for fixing — I mean something that would be useful because it says "We're using this under a claim of fair use, but we might not need to make that claim, because it might actually be in the public domain." Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue is one of having a separation between, 'wrong-license' (as in there is free license shown, but the media doesn't qualify) and 'wrong licence' (as in it is free but the license would suggest otherwise). 22:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn, I'm in the process of rewording this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2013 (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:Notable Akamba 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Akamba (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be attempting to do the job of a category or a list. Unlike those, it is not easily maintainable. As was argued at the similar Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_28#Template:Notable_Joluo, converting this to a list or category would eliminate issues with sourcing. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (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:Talkback 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 Withdrawn. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Interwiki_talkback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Whisperback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Talkbacktiny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposal to Delete: This template has been nominated for deletion twice here and here both ending as keeps. This template does get allot of use but what is the real point of it? Of course, it is to say you have replied to a message! But if you have to do this (because for some reason the person that posted on your talk page isn't waiting for a reply), why use a template? Why not write a lovely little message that would do exactly the same job without having this massive blue box appear everywhere.. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Subst: Another bit of food for thought, if you think this template should stay then why is it not substed when added to a talk page? Pretty much every other template that gets dumped on a user talk page (mainly warnings and welcomes) is substed, why is talkback an exception? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawn (I can see where this is going) I will move the subst discussion to the templates talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1st Nomination (2007_September_14)
  2. 2nd Nomination (2008_April_17)
  • To answer your questions:
  1. Templates are designed for one thing: to save typing. Why not 'write a lovely little message'? Because using the template saves typing and time.
  2. The reason it is not substed is to allow the recipient to easily remove the template once the message is received. This was a conscious design decision because it is intended not to clutter the user's talk page with a jumble of code.
Other then that, I fail to see any rationale for deletion on your part. Therefor keep. — Edokter (talk) — 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding substing, there are currently 43,000 page updates added to the job queue each time the template is edited (hence my query about substing) would it be an idea for a bot to subst old instances of the template, when the user has no plan to remove it? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep the most ridiculous reasoning for deletion - highly-used template with clear purpose. The subst'ing disucssion should be had elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 27 January 2013 (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:WQA-notice 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WQA-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:WQA has been marked as historical since September, per this discussion. I can cross-post to WT:Twinkle, if needed, to get this off of the "ARV" tab before it's deleted, though it really should've been removed from the module months ago, as you can't very well notify someone of a discussion at a defunct noticeboard. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but ask for its immediate removal from Twinkle. WQA is (for the time being) marked as historical, although there are daily commiserations that it shouldn't be. No need to delete the template in the meantime (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after Twinkle's updated; we don't need to retain templates relating to defunct projects/processes (per many, many deletion precedents here). If WQA restarts and looks like it will stick around, undelete the template or make a new one. Easy-peasy. The fact that some people lament WQA's passing isn't a reason to keep this template. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, remove from twinkle, and consider protecting/marking as historical. Not in use now, but could be again some day (in one form or another). --Nouniquenames 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more reason to keep this than to keep other templates related to deleted processes, e.g. {{Db-t1}} (discussion) for the repealed speedy deletion criterion T1. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obsolete. Should WQA start up again, it will most likely be in a different form and would require a new template. Regardless of this, we don't need to keep templates hanging around for history's sake (except in a few exceptional cases, and this isn't one of them). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as historical. No benefit to breaking links, etc, by deleting it. If WQA starts up again it may or may not require a different template, and even if this isn't exactly suited then it can be tweaked without the hassle, etc. of reinventing the wheel. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Template has been removed from Twinkle. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, after substituting the transclusions, which shouldn't be very numerous since the template is meant to be substituted. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2013 (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.

User:BigNate37/TM/Extant organization content notice 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 Procedurally Closed (and thus kept by default) as out-of-process; WP:Miscellany for deletion is the correct venue. [This is a non-admin closure.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant warning. Only used on 10 articles, creates a redlinked category. Also goes against policy — COI editing is not inherently bad, so not everyone with a COI absolutely has to go through this rigamarole. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note as this is in userspace, should this not be at MFD? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 27 January 2013 (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/2013_January_27&oldid=1089728948"