Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 8

September 8

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10 uses; should use the template:cite book style instead. Izno (talk) 22:09, 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).
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 replace with {{Infobox political party}}. ~ RobTalk 20:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been subject to some vandalism recently. The template is just a wrapper for {{Infobox political party}}. Currently, there are only 31 transclusions. Convert the 31 articles to use {{Infobox political party}} and delete this one. Bgwhite (talk) 20:11, 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).
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 Fuller Template:Heroes for hire moved over this template as per Sawol below . DES (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with only two links, other than the title page NSH002 (talk) 19:42, 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.
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) BethNaught (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no links other than the title page NSH002 (talk) 19:40, 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).
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 without substituting, as the instructions are outdated. ~ RobTalk 20:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user named in this template has been banned by Arbcom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 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).
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 those which have not already been speedied. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Portal:Horror fiction/Things you can do, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/to do, and {{WPAVIATION Announcements/Airports}}. Sawol (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because indeed they look redundant. I declined a T3 speedy deletion for the Horror tasks page because T3 is just for duplications of templates (not for duplicates of portal pages), which this wasn't. Best just to allow that page, and the others, to get reviewed by interested people in case someone knows of a good reason before deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 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).
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_28#Template:Audition Online Regions. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, unlikely to be used again. (Level of detail is video game trivia) – czar 13:44, 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).
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 merge {{Infobox Victorian rail line}} into {{infobox rail line}} by making the two parameters universally available. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Victorian rail line with Template:Infobox rail line.
Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}, with the exception of |yearcommenced= and |yearcompleted=, which should either be available universally, or not at all. Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 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).
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 keepJohnCD (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why it's never been used before, as it's useful. I've tidied it up a bit and added it to the relevant articles. Schwede66 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's in use now with several links. BethNaught (talk) 06:23, 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).
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 Relisting at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:TransAdelaide Stations. ~ RobTalk 04:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TransAdelaide is defunct, and separate navboxes for all of the lines exist. Two transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 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).
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. Khalid Sadeq's argument is invalid as the other template has been deleted and in any case "other stuff exists" does not trump the navbox guidelines. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful aid to navigation. Gives the impression that there are a number of related articles when in fact there are not. The history and Qadsia Records links go directly to an article on general Kuwaiti football club records, the Seasons link goes directly to the Kuwaiti Premier League article, whilst the rivalry links go only to the clubs in question, none of which actually discuss any rivalry. This is inherently unhelpful and confusing for any reader. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, does not aid navigation and should be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - you have left Qadsia SC's template which is nearly exactly the same why delete this and leave that I'm sorry but that's not fair and if it's not fully navigated ill try to make it better. Khalid Sadeq
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).
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite ISBN template. Avicennasis @ 08:21, 24 Elul 5775 / 08:21, 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).
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_28#Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0102558. ~ RobTalk 04:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just a complex replacement for article text. We've had these kinds of templates years ago. There's a number of these templates but I'm starting with this one. It's being used at Nothing_but_Trouble_(1991_film)#Reception with the text from here hidden to fill out the values that it has "9"% approval rating based "11" with an average of "2/10" and then a citation (with an error in it). To fix the citation, someone would need to find this thing and parse it like I did here (which still didn't fix it I think). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit fixed the date problem. These sub-pages of Template:Rotten Tomatoes score are produced by Theo's Little Bot, task #22. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was approved doesn't mean it's in line with policy. Generally, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." is a pretty clear guideline. While it's useful to have common text, it doesn't mean that it should be stored in this format, namely subpages that store the text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 13 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).
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. ~ RobTalk 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite pmid template. A search for the string "10099806" tells me that this is not a substitution of the template somewhere but a citation that isn't in use at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 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).
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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not many entries are linked in the template and the most linked are to sub-sections of some film article or to the biography of the artist himself. Only direct links are in the filmography section. But through long consensus we do not make templates of filmographies of actors. Hence suggesting deletion of template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest delete the filmography section but keep the rest. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rest are just redirects to those films which you are suggesting to delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Action Hero is blocked as a sockpuppet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Fruitsseeds is blocked as a sockpuppet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 28 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).
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 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).
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. As the template is not in use, the discussion is closed per "no quorum" principle: after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphand template and per this prior discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 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).
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 The Anome (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite isbn template page. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 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.
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite wdl template subpage. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 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).
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite wdl citation template subpage. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 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).
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite ISBN template. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 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).
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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cite ISBN template. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 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).