Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7 edit

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Queue 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 Moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Queue/1 Pppery (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Queue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Editnotice only makes sense for the actual DYK queues (Template:Did you know/Queue/1 through Template:Did you know/Queue/6), not the page about those queues. Pppery (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each of those pages' page notice is just a redirect to this notice, one template for every page - please let correct me if I'm missing something here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Pppery: Is this a proposal to replace the unified notice with six individual copies? If so, why? If the concern is that the text isn't directly relevant to the page about the queues, it can be moved elsewhere (with the redirects updated), but I'm not aware of the current setup causing any problems in the seven years it's existed. That page is rarely edited and unlikely to be edited by someone not editing the actual queues. —David Levy 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I completely missed the fact that the individual queues' editnotices were redirects. Pppery (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery: Has your concern been addressed fully? If so, is it okay to close this TfD discussion? —David Levy 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: No, I would like to keep this TfD open, but change my desired outcome to moving the template to some other name and retargeting the redirects to than to avoid an unnecessary editnotice on the main queue page. Pppery (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery:I just moved the notice to Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Queue/1 and redirected the other five queues' notices to that title. The notice is now displayed only when editing one of the six queues. Okay to close now? —David Levy 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Levy: Yes, this can be closed now (although AnomieBOT's G6 isn't exactly the best closing summary. Pppery (talk) 12:19, 8 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:Computer hardware degradation 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) 03:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computer hardware degradation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is certainly not about the degradation of computer hardware (thermal stress, oxidation?). The entities all seem to be related to computer performance, but it still seems like a fairly arbitrary collection. —Ruud 11:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not about physical stress, but about how hardware may fail under heavy workloads.
I think it should be renamed "How computer system behaves under heavy loads per subsystem".
But it is untrue that Trashing or Cache pollution requires heavy loads. Ushkin N (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar can be found in comp-sci Category:Unsolved problems in computer science, but in engineering everything is relative and there tradeoffs to many "problems" and thus no common name to them. Ushkin N (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 4 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) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking a parent article, sadly. I like this template, but it is too undefined to have an article, apparently —PC-XT+ 00:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although if referenced, maybe it could be used in an article as a table? —PC-XT+ 00:41, 15 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:Interstate Highways in Arizona 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) 20:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interstate Highways in Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:USRD precedent has been to remove these types of navboxes in favor of categories and list articles. LJ ↗ 18:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—these have been phased out in most other states. The few remaining examples had been left until the appropriate list article was started. In this case, we already have List of Interstate Highways in Arizona, and Category:Interstate Highways in Arizona, so this can go. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to category and list article. Dough4872 09:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dough4872....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 12 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:State routes in Arizona 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) 20:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State routes in Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Precedent is to delete these navboxes because they are better handled by categories, see the list at [1]. Rs chen 7754 16:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you can delete it: I was unaware of previous discussion when I made the template, note: I was going to further break the template down by county to give it more detail than the categories contain, but I guess since all other related ones were deleted this one wouldn't stand a chance even if it was tidied up. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now untranscluded it from the pages it was linked to, I apologize for creating this template without first searching for previous discussions on related templates. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:00, 7 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:Netflix upcoming 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 merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netflix upcoming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netflix (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Netflix upcoming with Template:Netflix.
Seems to be a redundant duplication with a slightly different layout, only 26 transclusions as opposed to 126 for {{Netflix}}. I'm not sure what Gonzalogallard's plans with this template are, but he seems to have been replacing it with {{Netflix}} (I happened to get a notification twice because the template links to Project Mc², an article I created). nyuszika7h (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these templates should be merged. Template:Netflix contains Template:Netflix upcoming. In an effort to facilitate navigation, I split the two templates, but later realized that nested templates would be a better option, as it provides a more comprehensive view of the content. I was planning on nominating Template:Netflix upcoming for deletion, but I forgot to do it. Thank you nyuszika7h for bringing this up. Gonzalogallard (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and revert to the last good version which was much more manageable. The collapsible groups version is horrible. It seems that the editor is trying to emulate the article List of original programs distributed by Netflix in the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the collapsible {{Netflix}} is confusing and overcomplicated, the list of films and stand-up comedies is relatively short and putting them between "Current" and "Upcoming" just confuses people. {{Netflix upcoming}} is not so bad, but there isn't really a good way to categorize them by genre because I see many of them that could also fit in other categories, and "Marvel" is not a genre, especially with just two shows it's not really a good separation. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplication. I prefer the layout of Template:Netflix, but I think the years information should be removed as it just adds clutter and isn't what navigation templates are for. Perhaps even the current and upcoming sections should be merged, but there might already be a good reason that they're not. anemone projectors 12:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge, duplicate navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as duplication, per above. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:05, 17 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:HD/share 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) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HD/share (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Help desk template for a tool that was deleted in 2014. Pppery (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No question on this one. Since it's unused, it can be safely deleted. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:02, 7 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).