Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 22 August 24 >

August 23 edit

Template:Hanamkonda weatherbox 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) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

used in one article, so should be simply merged with the parent article. no need to keep it in a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Has no reason to exist as a template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 28 August 2016 (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:OSTI 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) 01:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. While we have a number of links to the target site, the format does not lend itself to templating them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, might be useful to have something like {{OSTI url}} or {{cite OSTI}}, but since this isn't used, no reason to keep it (or repurpose it) at the moment. Frietjes (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I see the parallel with {{cite doi}}; however as {{cite doi}} is not used anymore and instead of it should be used {{cite journal}} with doi parameter, it is the same for OSTI as osti parameter is incorporated into {{cite journal}}. Therefore, deleting seems to be the best option. Beagel (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2016 (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:Argumental 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) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only has two links; not enough to provide useful navigation. --6ii9 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2016 (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:Got to Dance 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) 04:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a useful template, not even in use in half the pages linked on it. anemoneprojectors 13:46, 24 August 2016 (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:OG 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) 04:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target site is defunct. Only 28 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I fixed the dead linking but see no need to keep it around if we just substitute it. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2016 (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:2016 Hampton Park Schedule 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) 04:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a timetable... misuse of template space? FelisLeoTalk! 14:25, 23 August 2016 (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:Bwe 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) 04:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to {{Bible verse}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 23 August 2016 (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:Question of Sport 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) 04:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters and panelists in a game show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Note a number of similar navboxes have recently been deleted. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per longstanding consensus (let's call it WP:PERFNAV) anemoneprojectors 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per repeated consensus that the WP:PERFCAT rationale also applies to navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:20, 28 August 2016 (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:The One Show 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) 04:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters of a TV show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Multiple similar navboxes have been deleted in recent discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per longstanding consensus and recent deletions of similar templates. In fact I was going to nominate this myself. anemoneprojectors 12:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per repeated consensus that the WP:PERFCAT rationale also applies to navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:27, 28 August 2016 (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:The Panel 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 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters and panelists of a TV show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Multiple similar navboxes have been deleted in recent discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons given. We probably need a WP:PERFNAV policy! anemoneprojectors 12:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would be a guideline, but yes, we obviously need this since the consensus is solid and the issue comes up almost daily.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per repeated consensus that the WP:PERFCAT rationale also applies to navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:28, 28 August 2016 (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:AIHL Elite 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 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entire content has been deleted sans all these templates within Category:American Inline Hockey League navigational boxes per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Inline Hockey League. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I forgot this stuff was left over from the AfD. I think it is safe to delete it all and also any other templates or categories that mention AIHL meaning "American Inline Hockey League" (taking care not to accidentally delete any referring to the Australian league with the same acronym or anything else like that.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (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:A-Class-X-Files 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) 23:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template seems to have gone into disuse in favor of using Template:WikiProject The X-Files as seen by Category:A-Class The X-Files articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2016 (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:Panel buildings 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 on 2016 August 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (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:LPS Grade 6 Maths Game Knockout Stage 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 G8 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template serves no purpose other than supporting an article that is Prod tagged for being a random Maths Game for some random school. FelisLeoTalk! 07:14, 23 August 2016 (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:LPS Grade 6 Maths Game Groups 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 G8 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template serves no purpose other than supporting an article that is Prod tagged for being a random Maths Game for some random school. FelisLeoTalk! 07:09, 23 August 2016 (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:ArchINFORM 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) 23:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template. Target site uses its own IDs, but appears to simply republish Wikipedia's content and links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • archINFORM indeed uses Wikipedia's entries, but furthermore has a lot of own data (very varying in size/language). The database is pretty well known in the Architecture community (esp. German spoken areas). Template is useful, but should only be applieed to entries, where archINFORM delivers additional content. --Arch2all (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not these links are appropriate is a content question that is beyond the scope of TfD as I understand it. As long as articles use the template (and there are more than 300 of them [1]) we shouldn't touch it. Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of use is not the only deletion rationale, and used templates are often deleted as being inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep This one needs to be documented to only be used for the site's unique material, not its WP rehash. If these pages are distinguishable by URL, then template should be recoded to not permit the WP-rehash pages to be used (even if it means changing the input of the 200 current uses). If after 6 months it is mostly used to WP:CIRCULAR-cite WP for itself, then it should probably be deleted. This raises the question of whether the source is actually reliable for what it publishes itself. If it's not, then we don't need a citation template for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:33, 28 August 2016 (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/2016_August_23&oldid=1136430118"