Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 14 September 16 >

September 15 edit

Template:Collab-bird 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration template; last updated 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casliber: (arbitrarily choosing the most recent of these listings in which to ask the question): Quite a few of these old, unused templates marking defunct collaborations have been deleted recently. These frequently use dated or nonstandard formatting or are badly constructed (like this one), and are unwieldy enough that anyone trying to revive the effort would do better to create new templates. Many of them are vaguely embarrassing, left moldering on talk pages with such old dates. The associated wikiproject pages, where the actual attempts at collaborative editing happened, are of course preserved; it's just particular implementations of those attempts, unlikely to be useful in the future, that are being nominated for deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:35, 23 September 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:AfricanCOTW 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Collaboration of the month"; marked as defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:34, 23 September 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:MexC 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration template; last updated 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:34, 23 September 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:PLCOTW 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Collaboration of the week"; last updated 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:34, 23 September 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:CurrentLCOTW 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Collaboration of the fortnight"; last updated 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:34, 23 September 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:Spam-warn 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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 23#Template:Spam-warn. Gparyani (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Spam-warn with Template:Db-spam-notice.
Don't see why there is a need for this separate template, as Template:Db-spam-notice also exists for the exact same criterion (generic G11). The latter template is better, as it uses the global Template:Db-notice unlike the former, and the latter is more common, as it is used by Twinkle. Gparyani (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the former per nominator. Spam-warn contains some meaningful text not mentioned inn Db-spam-notice, which would warrant merging, but it can't work because Spam-warn doesn't use the default {{db-notice}} template, while Db-spam-notice does. --TL22 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 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:Comics creator redi 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. Unused categorization template for redirects. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned looks like incomplete template Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks complete to me. Is this a substitution template? Its code looks like it is used to build the categorization scheme for a page. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused, and clearly not a substitution template due to the lack of safesubst: markup. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 21 September 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).

Barnstar 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 Relist at October 18. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging.

No need for three templates. The resultant merged template should be available as a parent for a barnstar templates, in the manner of {{Tmbox}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't look like {{Award}} is used anywhere, so delete it and move {{Award2}} in its place. {{Barnstar}} is a floated thumbnail, so maybe we want to keep it to separate, if people would like to maintain the choice between the two formats. Alakzi (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Worth noting that {{Award}} is meant to be substituted, in relation to the above discussion. It could be used much more widely than transclusions would indicate or even in something like Twinkle, and we wouldn't know through the transclusion count. ~ RobTalk 01:40, 16 September 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:EmmyAward Structured Reality Program 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 after orphaning (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not provide useful navigation. Only two entries and they both link to the same article. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Two links (plus a repeated link) is not enough for a navbox. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:36, 11 October 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:EmmyAward Unstructured Reality Program 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 after orphaning.(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not provide useful navigation. Only two entries and they both link to the same article. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Two links (plus a repeated link) is not enough for a navbox. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:36, 11 October 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:Commons page 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 Oct 18. Discussion leaning toward delete but more input necessary. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just four transcusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It shouldn't be transcluded: someone should fix the problem and remove the template. I'm not sure if this is really that necessary for en.wp but the fact that it's unused is actually a good thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't this be {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} ?-- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a version of {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} that's intended for things other than images (such as categories and galleries). The situation's unlikely to come up that often, but the templates need to be sufficiently different in content (e.g. this one doesn't need to have such a focus on licensing) that merging them would likely be difficult. One big problem here may be that this is populating a maintenance category that nobody's likely to know about, and as such it's not likely to produce the desired effect.
  • The bigger problem, though, comes from looking at how the template is used in practice: it's being placed, not on existing content (categories full of images, etc.) that might need transwiki-ing, but on article talk pages as a request to create a corresponding Commons category/gallery. This is something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia; it's the equivalent of implementing Wikipedia:Requested articles via placing templates on pages with the corresponding name on Wikibooks. Uses of this template should thus probably be aimed at an appropriate project page on Commons instead (assuming there is one; I can't find one, and have asked on Commons about how this situation should be handled). --ais523 08:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Update: the opinion from Commons seems to be that there's no need for a process page at Commons because it would be possible to just create the category/gallery yourself, and I think I agree with that. At any rate, a maintenance category on enwiki definitely seems to be the wrong place. --ais523 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress 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 at 18 Oct.Primefac (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A random sample of transclusions of the first template show it remaining on article talk pages for between five and ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 15 September 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:Talk Spoken Wikipedia id-3 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. Single usage has been replaced as suggested. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 15 September 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_September_15&oldid=772198825"