Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10 edit

Template:Verstandig Broadcasting 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. Essentially a G7 result. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template for company that doesn't have an article. In fact one of the linked articles doesn't mention the owner. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created when the company had stations in multiple markets. Now they have just the four in the Hagerstown, Maryland market. As the creator of this template, I have no objections to it being deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 10 November 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).

Template:RuneSoft 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 relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 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).

Template:Atari game lists by platform 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, redundant to another navigation box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanding on my reasons why: the template isn't used much, not even on the links provided by the template. Better yet, there's {{Video game lists by platform}}, which lists every list of video game release per platform, making a line by one company redundant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this broad? It list all the game list articles for each Atari game system. Being way too broad is Template:Video game lists by platform. Why is that being used in these articles, instead of the one that just list the relevant information? Why have that massive list of unrelated things, instead of focusing only on those in the Atari family? Dream Focus 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, @Dream Focus:, I was in a bit of rush with nominating it, I've expanded on my rationale. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per substantial duplication with Template:Video game lists by platform. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 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).

Template:Blaby Computer Games series 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) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Narrow breadth covered fine in the prose and in See also sections as needed. czar 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 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).

Template:Legazpi TV 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 objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 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).

Template:Supermarkets in Europe 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. Category:Supermarket templates already exists, and a subcat can be created if necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use a category instead. Doesn't seem likely that someone would be reading the template for one country's supermarkets and say "hey, I wonder what other ones we have?" (navbox to get from one to another) as compared to "I'm looking to see if we have a certain one" (directly going to cat of all actually created ones). The templates' docs can all have a pointer to the cat if one wishes to emphasize the range of availability. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, I see no real harm here if it's only be used in template space, but, given the small number of links, a category would work as well. Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 19 November 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).

Template:BannedMeansBanned 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, with the main concerns being harassment and grave dancing. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • See previous discussions here and here. BethNaught (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{sockpuppeteer}} and/or {{banned user}}. Standalone it's just a completely pointless piece of crap. --189.25.195.239 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{banned user}} or a similar template so the post-merge template includes the text "any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted" or a similar phrase. Okay with Keep (if kept, consider changing the color scheme from red to grey). Not okay with "delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted". Side-note: I agree with the nominator that the red color and having two templates that both say "banned" on the user's talk page gives the appearance of harassment. The fix is to change the layout and presentation of the messages to both the banned editor ("you are banned") and to the community ("he is banned, his edits may be reverted"), not the meaning of those messages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Template:Banned user/testcases for an example of how we can keep the existing template but make it look less intimidating to the banned editor. Note - ideally, the "big red box" that is now {{BannedMeansBanned}} would be neutral grey and it might not even be a box - it might just be text intended to be transcluded into other templates such as {{Banned user}}. I think "Banned user" is the only template that transcludes this one but it's hard to be sure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information I have asked that Template:BannedMeansBanned/sandbox's create-protection be removed. Once it is removed, we can play around with variations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary. NE Ent 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we discuss this one already, or was that a different gravedancing template? Delete it with fire. I just don't understand the underlying model of human psychology here. "Someone is behaving badly despite efforts to make them stop. What should we do about that? I know! Make a template telling them we really mean it!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Opabinia regalis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 14 November 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).

Template:Rupesh Paul 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) 03:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, connects 5 articles, and seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful navigational aid, clearly passes three of the five criteria on WP:NAVBOX, and arguably meets the other two (3 and 5) too. Perfectly standard use of a navbox. There is no added notability requirement for navbox eligibility beyond it linking more than two articles, so I would argue he is such a director who warrants a template. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 November 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).

Template:Anthony Marinelli 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 relist at Dec 3. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 3 December 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).

Template:Chris Haw 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 relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 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).

Template:Shane Claiborne 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 relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 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).

Template:Fifty Shades of Grey 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 and move {{Fifty Shades (trilogy)}} into its place (leaving a redirect). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It started out just calling two other templates which were navboxes at Fifty Shades of Grey which wasn't useful. Since then, it has grown even less useful as it now simply invokes Template:Fifty Shades (trilogy). I've changed it's only use to invoke that template directly in the Fifty Shades article so this template is not used any more. Whpq (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to the main template. or, move the main template to this title. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would make the most sense to delete this template, and then move the main template here. This name makes more sense. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or redirect as substantial duplication under WP:T3. {{Fifty Shades of Grey}} is the better title though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 17 November 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).

Template:Salvation Army camps in Canada 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; deleted as G6 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated all the short stubs into one article at Salvation Army camps in Canada and put in redirects so this template serves no purpose anymore. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 10 November 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).

Template:Animal-disease-stub 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) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't used. In the description for the stub category Veterinary medicine stubs, it says "relating to conditions and diseases of animals, and anatomy specific to animal species" Therefore, I think the animal disease template isnt needed MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not all animals are part of veterinary medicine. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment true, but I see this template as being redundant. The description includes "relating to diseases of animals" for Veterinary medicine stubs. If the animal disease template were to be used, I think the diseases in the veterinary medicine stubs should be moved over to the animal disease stub category and the veterinary medicine stub description would have to be edited. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be unused. Vet-med-stub will work just as well, provided that the appropriate categories are listed at that template. Montanabw(talk) 08:23, 12 November 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).

Air Rifle 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. Cats don't exist, and so these stub templates don't need to either. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not used in any articles. I'm not 100% sure if they'd useful as feeder templates or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unless there is an associated tracking category, in which case this should be considered at WP:CFD? Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are not article templates, these are category templates. They should never be used in articles -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are no stub categories for these templates. Both link to Air Rifle, which doesn't exist and Air rifle redirects to Air gun. If these templates were to be used, I think the words Rifle and Gun should be lowercase. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 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).

Template:Big Brother 2012 (Australia) 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It is specific to one single season of Big Brother Australia, and simply uses {{Big Brother endgame}} with season specific parameters filled in. I've reverted its use in the article as pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no need to split this from the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 10 November 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).

Template:Lutheranism by country 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) 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless t emplate. The creator copied the wiki markup for the map and accompanying legend from the Lutheranism article to create this template. She/he then replaced the original markup with a template which transcludes exactly the same thing. The only use was in the original Lutheranism article; I've reverted as it is totally pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, are you sure it wasn't their intention to also transclude it on Lutheranism by region? This article appears to make use of the same file, so keeping the keys uniform makes some kind of sense. Whether that would be enough to justify keeping I'm not sure, though. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am reasonably sure. This editor has created other one shot useless templates. See my 2 nominations above this one. As for whether use in a second article would justify not in this case --Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 November 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).

Template:Lisa Moscatiello 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue is the only article in this template that survived a deletion discussion. Even if that were not the case, those 5 albums would probably only belong in Lisa Moscatiello#Discography and not in this template. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 10 November 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_10&oldid=1076218461"