Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2 edit

Template:Peggy Carter 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peggy Carter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is centered on a minor character who is a recurring supporting/cameo character in the MCU movies and has her own mini-series, but is a minor and borderline obscure character in the comics continuity and any other media outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. All entries on the template have no relevance or connection to the character outside of the MCU mini series. If Phil Coulson, Nick Fury or Agents of SHIELD don't get to have a template to their name, then neither should this character. Haleth (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it navigates 5 articles: Peggy Carter, Agent Carter (film), Agent Carter (TV series), Agent Carter (season 1), List of Agent Carter characters; I would remove all other links though. I would also merge {{Agent Carter episodes}} into this template. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest Haleth withdraw this nomination come up with a new rationalle. "Other Stuff Exists" is a poor argument to be making for deleting a template. While I concur with 67IP that we probably should merge the Agent Carter Episodes template in, that's not germane to the topic. Further your equivilance only holds for Phil Coulson (Appeared in a short, at least one movie, and is primariy on a TV series). Fury guest stars in movies occasionally and the Agents series from time to time. Also note that there's a pseudo-template on Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D. that contains several sub-templates which is why it makes sense to not have a Phil Coulson template because the show isn't about him, it's about the ensemble of the team. Further I suggest that Haleth read WP:NAVBOX which gives the rationalle for Navbox templates. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2015 (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:Shrubbery 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. The support for humor or the joke itself doesn't go against the opposition who specific argue against the template as the mechanism for the joke. The same joke can be done by creating the page Wikipedia:SHRUBBERY as an essay or whatever rather than the template format. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't a template and the page hasn't been edited in 8 years. I'm not sure what the purpose of this page is. I gather it is a joke but it probably had more relevance in 2007 than it does now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete =- an obscure and unhelpful cultural reference that most editors won't get. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sarcastic delete~~ God forbid that anyone should attempt to defuse and argument with a humorous aside. We're all very important people and Wikipedia is a serious project.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm isn't helpful in deletion discussions, so I've struck your vote. Feel free to re-vote but with a more serious comment please. --TL22 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - <sigh....> Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but save the salt for the herring. What dark times we live in when even an honest shrubber must agree that a joke has aged too much, much like unsalted herring, which is simply of no use in chopping down a tree as my sister once told me before a moose bit her.... 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting a humorless exercise in bureaucracy. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical common sense. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the longest thread on ANI WITH A HERRING may be met with additional obscure cultural references that surely no one with an Internet connection has ever heard of before. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... keep. I think the arguments from the previous deletion discussion are still appropriate here, so I'll point to that rather than repeating them. It's not just a pointlessly humorous thing, but serves a purpose. Even if it's not used often these days, it's still has cultural relevance in a historic sense. — Earwig ^talk 05:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:The Earwig. Also, bring me a shrubbery! ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inflammatory. Alakzi (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2015 (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:Inactive userpage blanked 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inactive userpage blanked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I wonder if this template reflects current consensus. Other than a singular one-line mention to "Consider replacing the content with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}" at Wikipedia:User pages#Recommended solutions, there is no other mention of how it fits policy-wise. The other templates (Template:Courtesy blanked, Template:Intentionally blank, and Template:Discussion blanked) relate to discussions about content not actual allege content itself (we don't blank articles that don't pass AFD, we delete them). While this prevents indexing, the concern behind WP:NOTHOSTING is not just the fact that the content can be indexed but that the content is just not wanted here. The template itself is supposedly only for userpages which I consider the main page of an editor not "Old drafting pages" which is where it's mentioned and more likely where it's used (that's just a point not a deletion rationale). If it's just the main user page that's problematic, WP:U5 supports deletion not blanking in this manner. Policy also doesn't seem to support indefinitely (even blanked) drafts anymore as newer drafts (using WP:AFC for example) are formulated within draftspace and have fixed time limits to either be edited or reviewed (even those edited but going nowhere show up at MFD something). They all have various amounts of leeway towards restoration if requested which is admittedly more difficult for a new user to figure out than unblanking but (and there's no way to know this) I don't think there's a significant number of editors who come back and somehow know how to pull up the history and get an inactive version if they want but would be too discouraged if they had to go ask someone to restore it for them. Moving articles to mainspace provides finality, MFD provides finality and even movement to draftspace provides finality but this template does not. Also, as I admittedly argue at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:YourBrandRocks.2FRyan Arnold, blanking a page doesn't stop the possibility of unblanking if there's gamesmanship going on and so these article may have to be monitored. There are 158 translucations of this template for reference. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but take the issue to the talk page. The template may be helpful so that the user doesn't have to request undeletion just after they come back. WP:U5 may apply in some circumstances but WP:STALEDRAFT very rarely applies. AfC submissions that are abandoned may be deleted as courtesy though, since AfC is not a indefinite host of uncyclopedic content, but drafts that are not part of AfC may simply be kept and blanked as a courtesy. Again, feel free to take to the talk page. --TL22 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - policy still allows for users to draft materials in their userspace rather than using draftspace or AfC, so this template still has a use in that context. It's a gentler option than simply going all the way and deleting the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (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:3166comp 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3166comp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I'm the creator. Speedy even. -DePiep (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2015 (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:1964 Constitution of Afghanistan 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. — Earwig ^talk 04:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1964 Constitution of Afghanistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template unused at 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (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.

NBA Finals broadcasters 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. — Earwig ^talk 05:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960s NBA Finals broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1970s NBA Finals broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990s NBA Finals broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000s NBA Finals broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2010s NBA Finals broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly orphaned templates (1970s is only used at the 1971 article). The 1980s was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1#Template:1980s_NBA_Finals_broadcasters because this content is also redundant to List of NBA Finals broadcasters. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per precent and WP:TEMPLATECREEP. We don't need to take every minor article and create a template to plaster on pages. Really, readers know to click on article links for more info.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2015 (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:1954 railway accidents 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1954 railway accidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, while useful in some ways, only contains red links and is the only member of Category:Railway accidents in 1954. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) keep now that an article has been created. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This template is part of a series of templates covering individual years. It just needs to have at least one of the red links turned into a blue one. There is a de.wiki article about the Fabrica accident (2 September 1954) here, and that article relies upon an English language reference. I will translate it in the near future. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No articles exist, so where is this navbox supposed to link to. Even if the promised article is created, that's just one link. Consensus is that one article isn't enough for a navbox....William 14:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created Fabrica train crash, so the navbox is no longer completely unused. While consensus may be that navboxes should have multiple articles, it is clear in this case that others can be created or added in due time. Furthermore, this one exists as part of a navigable sequence with other years, and it would be confusing for users for it to be missing. — Earwig ^talk 01:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earwig. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (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:All Schenker 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. — Earwig ^talk 03:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All Schenker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (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:No Schenker 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. — Earwig ^talk 03:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Schenker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (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:Albury/Wodonga radio 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 merge. — Earwig ^talk 04:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albury/Wodonga radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Albury-Wodonga Radio. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (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:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Preamble 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. — Earwig ^talk 05:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Preamble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't have template that just hard-code text, it makes each article page excessively complicated with little gain. It could be considered a WP:T3 situation. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template in question will be used on 652 pages. Perhaps I structured the page wrong with a template. Is there some better way to do this? But regardless, the pages this template is being used on are already nominated for deletion, so I guess the point is moot. Slevinski (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP:T3 apply? T3 states Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. The text of this template is original. Looking at the MediaWiki manual about templates: If you have standard texts you want to include on several pages, the MediaWiki template feature comes into play. What's the problem? Slevinski (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hard-coded instance of template:ambox with a bunch of other text around it. According to policy, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text". It's possible to support an infobox connecting all the templates but the actual "preamble" (which we don't generally have) for each article should be allowed to be edited and individualized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template:ambox is to notify interested users that the entire set is being considered for deletion. Originally, the deletion notice was only put on one page, but the deletion is for the whole set of pages. The use of the ambox template was for easy use and formatting. Once the status of the entire set is settled, the ambox template will be removed or the pages will be deleted and the template won't be needed anymore. As it stands, I think the "preamble" template worked as designed because the notice in the preamble was included in over 100 pages without editing the individual pages. If you would rather I rewrite the deletion notice without using the ambox, I can do that.

The guideline says normally, I believe this is an outside of the normal scope. The "preamble" is not strictly article text, but more in lines with the second guideline: Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers. The redundant text will need to be updates for all of the pages together. For each individual article, they can still be edited and individualized. The "preamble" can be kept with additional information above or below. Or the "preamble" can be removed from an individual page and rewritten to customize it for any particular page. Slevinski (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you justify this under "information to assist readers", literally everything falls under that category. Something that wasn't there to assist readers shouldn't be there, template or not. Again, the vast majority of this is just the text and then it an ambox. This entirely thing could be done as actual text on the article pages without the need to hide it within an extra layer of templating which (a) can't be customized if needed and (b) is more difficult for other editors to figure out and edit. There is very gained by having it hidden away on another template (a template that now must be protected and separately watched from the articles themselves) rather than just posting the verbage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. All articles using it were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2015 (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:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Footer 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 speedy delete as unused, redundant template as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4 — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only adds a category. It can be replaced with the actual category instead. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard footer is currently used on over 100 pages. There are 652 pages it might be used on. While the template is very basic right now, it is set up to expand the footer on each of those pages. Additionally, the exact name of the category might change, as well as the number of categories. Rather than changing each of the 652 pages, this template was created. Slevinski (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template that consists of a single red-linked category. Create the category first and then add the category, there's no need to have a template and then work out what the category could be and what else you want because that prevents anyone else from working on those pages until the template is worked out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Sutton_SignWriting_Unicode_Sequences does not exist, but the category link lists all of the affected pages. No one is prevented from working on the pages. They can either edit the footer to affect all pages or they can edit a specific page. If anything, the template enables people to edit the linked article because they are much more likely to edit one template than to edit hundreds of individual pages. Slevinski (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but first subst this template on the pages it is being used on. Simply useless and could be borderline to T3 if it wasn't cause it doesn't use another template. May request a criteria for that though. --TL22 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the articles are deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4 then the template can be deleted as unused. If the articles are kept then they should be better tied together and a footer template with navigation would be suited for this, so it can be considered a case of {{Coming navbox}} – a rarely used template I created after seeing navboxes being added to tennis articles before the navbox had actually been created. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A footer template could be useful but this is not a footer template, this is a lazy way to add a category to a bunch of article without actually creating and adding the category to the articles. It could be substituted now so that the category is added if that makes it easier and if a footer is designed, then it rightly can be included on all the pages. At the current moment, it does nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's a footer template. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2015 (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:X-Ray Spex 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. — Earwig ^talk 04:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X-Ray Spex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially only links between three articles. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has plenty of working links. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got five - not sure why you're not counting the band members? Alakzi (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2015 (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.