Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6 edit

Template:Carmelita Jeter 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 14#Template:Carmelita Jeter. ~ RobTalk 02:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a series of links to championships the athlete has competed in and the athlete's coach and brother. Carmelita Jeter is not a sufficient person to warrant her own navigation across these pages SFB 18:03, 6 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:ExtractedBG 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; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Despite using the userbox template, it does not seem to be meant as a userbox; however, I have no idea what the intended purpose of this template actually is. (I wish WP:CSD#T3 also covered unused templates, like it did before.) —Keφr 07:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can go if you want. It was just a little identifier that the logo was extracted from a PDF by myself, this was from years ago and in hindsight was a bit of unnecessary self-promotion (I saw someone else do it and created something similar). I probably only used it two or three times. Feel free to delete. Gibbsyspin 10:40 pm, Today (UTC+10)
You can {{db-author}} it. —Keφr 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers Gibbsyspin 13:43, 8 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Minor provinces of British India in 1907 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. While no other editors have commented here agreeing with a delete, the RfC linked by SpacemanSpiff represents a clear consensus on this issue. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, the consensus developed there is still applicable. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been made a template, it's content that was being made to get in through the backdoor. Was rejected through an RfC and has been unused in the four years since. See also {{Major provinces of British India in 1907}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 6 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:Major provinces of British India in 1907 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. While no other editors have commented here agreeing with a delete, the RfC linked by SpacemanSpiff represents a clear consensus on this issue. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, the consensus developed there is still applicable. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been made a template, it's content that was being made to get in through the backdoor. Was rejected through an RfC and has been unused in the four years since. See also {{Minor provinces of British India in 1907}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:02, 6 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:Metatalk 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 14#Template:Metatalk. Alakzi (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to similar talk-page header templates. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment which talk page headers is it redundant to? The documentation explains which circumstances this template should be used, and why it shouldn't be used widely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because this template solves a problem and doesn't violate policy. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with Template:Off topic warning. They serve similar purposes, although there're some differences. Ctwabn (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:35, 6 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:A2 honeycombs 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 14#Template:A2 honeycombs. Alakzi (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a dimensional series, like Template:A3_honeycombs Template:A4_honeycombs Template:A5_honeycombs... Tom Ruen (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it uses Coxeter notation, I linked it there as an example of the Extended symmetry section. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. I haven't evaluated whether this could ever be useful, but right now it isn't. I wouldn't object if a future editor wishes this to be restored for use in an article, but for now we just have a two year old template with zero transclusions. It's adding nothing to the wiki at the moment, and I have no reason to believe it will in the near future. ~ RobTalk 05:22, 6 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:"USS Whale" 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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unusable template. Just text here. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreferenced stub article masquerading as a template -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the obvious; not even a template. ~ RobTalk 05:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Moved to mainspace but upon some quick investigation discovered was a hoax and deleted, and blocked the account involved.NativeForeigner Talk 08:01, 7 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:"Spooked" The New York Times Magazine April 27, 2003 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/speedy delete. Per the rationale below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unused I presume specific-source citation template. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused and improperly formatted source template -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Templates used for individual references are rarely if ever appropriate. ~ RobTalk 05:23, 6 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite doi/10.7326.2F0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010 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 keep for now. Iron out how this is all going to be handled on the talk page of {{Cite doi}}; TfD isn't the place to debate the deprecation strategy. Alakzi (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this for CFD under T3 but that was rejected. This template is now orphaned following this edit. Its only use was a possible reference at Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American College of Surgeons and was never used on any articles. If this citation is used, it can be done with the simple cite journal text rather than from the deprecatated cite doi and this hard-coded text. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close this. {{cite doi}}'s been deprecated, and there's thousands of these orphaned templates. It's going to be dealt with in the future, when bots are done dealing with the mess. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "in the future" mean? The discussion was last July, you argued against depreciation with a speedy close even, the consensus was against it and now if people actually try to enforce the depreciation deprecation (to a random Wikipedia page that just lists references not even an article) you want to further wait for what? Unless you revert it and replace the template (which is not depreciation deprecation) it's still an orphaned unused template so it should be deleted anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deprecation", not "depreciation". That aside, the point he's making is that since it's presently being deprecated, we shouldn't waste time on individual citations. That we should instead wait for someone (an admin bot?) to take care of all templates at the same time. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Waste time in what way? Not delete the orphan templates left over? Or not manually remove these? I'll agree to the second but the first should still be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If any particular case comes up, we shouldn't not delete it either. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and subst and delete all the "cite doi/xyz" whenever they come up. There's no need to postpone this, since they are not longer being created automatically, whenever such comes up, they should be easily just deleted. And we should rapidly implement a bot to get rid of the rest of them. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per IP 70, it makes little sense to close individual templates as "keep" or "no consensus". We all agree these should be deleted, and it's just a matter of when. I agree that we should not make these nominations routine, however. We should enlist an admin bot. Someone more familiar with the situation may wish to make a request at WP:Bot requests after getting clear consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot to carry out at the village pump. ~ RobTalk 05:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot should go through and delete all unused {{cite isbn}}, {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, {{cite jstor}}, and {{cite hdl}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:UnusedTemplates is already a clogged mess and Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates is from April last year. This will take a while (especially if there's a new RFC and another around of arguments about this at all). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot can get them from a database dump. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot doing this has now been stopped and thus we again will do this in the future. The stalling tactics to me have worked. A new RFC has been started at Template_talk:Cite_doi#RfC:_Should_cite_doi_template_be_deprecated.3F basically asking for another round of 'don't do this'. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a deletion criterion for unused templates. Whatever the RFC that does not affect being unused. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information. Wikipedia is not a DOI database. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think the RFC will take precedence over a lone TFD's consensus, you've missed out on WP:CONLEVEL. WP:NOT also isn't relevant here. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not assume bad faith of anyone in this discussion, as I think everyone in this particular discussion has supported the deprecation in the past. Period. Your own tactics of "well, I'll just get my way in the end" are not conducive to what is apparently a contentious decision and I would suspect that a decision at TFD would be overridden and reverted by the closure of the RFC. So, frankly, this TFD should just be closed in lieu of the RFC. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing some very odd discussion here then. It's an orphaned template. Fine, someone can undo this edit (I have zero idea how the earlier version is easier for new users to figure out but that's just me) and argue keep because it's being used. I'm not even sure what Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American College of Surgeons is exactly for (it's not precisely an article) but whatever, it's there with all those templates in case someone wants to use them. We had a fight at cite doi that had a consensus in 2014, it was ignored for months, we have a fight at cite isbn, it's been ignored, and then when it's actually implemented (bot or human), we argue again that we need to wait. So either undo the edit and argue keep because for some magical reason, we need unwatched subpages to keep single citations around or it should be deleted because it is an orphaned template that really doesn't do anything here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no-decision Since the decision to deprecated {{cite doi}} is under dispute, none of the associated template should be deleted until that is resolved. So, close now, and allow a mass-renomination if there is an agreement to delete these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even were the decision to deprecate reversed, that does not affect that a lack of use is a valid deletion rationale for a template. There is no grounds to close this as no decision. ~ RobTalk 02:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no-decision per Oiyarbepsy, and stop nominating every single use of these templates. There are more than 10000[1]. Christian75 (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 59k at Category:Cite doi templates, a significant number of which are cited once or perhaps none at all. I'll make a bot request or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 14 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_6&oldid=1076619010"