Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24 edit

Template:Video game release/sort 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, abandoned template. Formerly used by Video game release, but now replaced. Lordtobi (✉) 22:28, 24 December 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:Other languages 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

This template will be a year old next week. It isn't used anywhere, and its use seems to contemplate a situation where a page in the English wiki will have alternative language versions under a common title, each suffice by /xx where xx is a two-letter code for a language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 24 December 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service 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 2017 January 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 329th ID 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when I view the template, I notice it was much larger before this edit practically deleted all of the links. Dapi89 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these were red links, the rest were redirected to a list: 2015 version, leaving two which are articles. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the PLD 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 15th Waffen GD 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 1 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template was much larger before this edit. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many were red links, the rest were redirected to a list 2014 version, leaving one entry that is an article. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 320th ID 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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Life ki aisi ki taisi 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 speedy delete. Cack-handedness by self-promoter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a movie Life Ki Aisi Ki Taisi Marvellous Spider-Man 17:10, 24 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:RFDNote-NPF 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. It appears that this template (along with others) are part of a family of NPF templates that might still be relevant. I suggest starting a discussion about their future (merge/delete all/etc). Primefac (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to tag this template with {{Db-t3}} since the function it serves is duplicative of {{RFDNote}}, in addition to the template seemingly being unused. However, this template was created by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm not sure what is going on since it may be used in a way I don't see and I don't want to break anything. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewed the template's documentation. Is this template still hardcoded into the New Pages Feed? I can't tell since I don't see any obvious connections to this template and any "MediaWiki:" namespace pages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is used & subst'd via https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-PageTriage/blob/0aa029dc2dd1e1d618b2b5c4333e08d2876366d2/modules/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions.js#L319 - So, keep and amend docs (partially done). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and amend whatever is using this to use the standard {{RFDNote}} rather than forking its own duplicate. Pppery 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 33 other -NPF templates, all of which are similarly redundant. Pppery 13:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, looks like this is functionally equivalent to {{RFDNote}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quiddity (WMF), is this template still actively being used in the New Page feed? Primefac (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac it is still the target in the code (per above), but a quick search suggests that it hasn't actually been used since 2013. (Versus some of the other -NPF variants, which are in regular/daily use).
    • However, and in reply to comments about redundancy, whilst the -NPF templates may be functionally identical, they differ quite a lot in nuance of language used. They were specifically written to be more personal (from "I") and with a bit of friendliness ("Hello"), and with a more informal and potentially understandable (less wikispeak) explanation of how the recipient can particpate (compare Template:AfD-notice-NPF and Template:Afd notice, for example). Hence, I'd gently object to deletion on 'redundancy' grounds (with both volunteer and staff hat!). (Addendum: Ideally we'd merge them, but that will/would require a lot of time to discuss/debate all the differences, and investigate any available data on whether one variant helped with editor-retention over the other. Hopefully that will happen over the long term.) Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2017 (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:Trump family 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. The general consensus is to trim down the family content in {{Donald Trump}} instead. The specifics of that trimming should be held at that template's talk page. NPASR should the talk page discussion decide that {{Trump family}} should actually be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is already included at {{Donald Trump}}, I see no need for a separate template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete needless repetition of content Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This template emerged from a split of a super-long Trump navbox into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}}, {{Trump media}} and {{Trump presidency}}. In parallel the {{Donald Trump}} navbox emerged which has a bit of the presidency, a (very little) bit of the businesses, a bit of the media and a bit of the family, so I'm not sure what purpose that one serves. I would keep each template separate, which allows a better fit with contents of articles to which they are added. — JFG talk 00:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, {{Donald Trump}} contains the entire contents of the family template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not helpful, agreed, but the correct solution is to slim down *that* template, not delete *this* one. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Slim down what? Every US president's template includes a 'Family' section, as do other prominent individual's templates. There is nothing to slim down, the section is already there by site consistency. Randy Kryn 23:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicated in the Donald Trump template and per other US presidential templates which contain 'Family' sections. The 'Presidency' template should also be fully duplicated in some form in the Donald Trump template, and 'Business' could become a fold-out in it as well. Randy Kryn 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that would send us back to the pre-election situation: a yuuuge unmanageable navbox (to which now the developing presidency articles should be added). See how it looked and weep: Old revision of Template:Trump. Collapsible sections wouldn't make it any more palatable. I strongly oppose this idea. — JFG talk 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, just sticking to this template (discussion drift my fault), the complete list is also included in the 'Family' section on the {{Donald Trump}} template. This section, either included or welcome on major individual templates, is a part of all US presidential templates. So just referring to the template under discussion, there really is no need for it. Randy Kryn 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Template:Trump family stuff, and get rid of the redundant subsection of Template:Donald Trump. For an article that is about him *and* about his family, both navboxes would be used. For an article that is *not* about his family, such as most of the political articles, linking to his junior high school son Barron Trump is not very helpful, nor is linking to his deceased grandfather Frederick Trump. Suggest that Template:Donald_Trump should only retain (in the Related section where we currently list Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago) the names that are important parts of his *current* adult life: Melania, Ivanka & Jared, Eric, and DonaldJr. Those are the people that will be involved with the Trump administration in high-visibility roles. Can also have a link to Other family members in the same Related section of the Donald Trump navbox, if that is considered helpful. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this template is kept the family section of the main Donald Trump template should remain. All US presidents templates have a family section (as far as I recall), and most templates for individuals either include family or that section would be welcome. Randy Kryn 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable template regarding the most prominent family in USA. Valoem talk contrib 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shave this off the main Trump navbox, they're independently notable and it makes other navbox a little more manageable. LM2000 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    LM2000, as mentioned many times above, the Family section is used or is welcome on all major individual templates. Site consistency. Randy Kryn 11:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: We heard you. It doesn't help your case to restate your argument as an answer to every Keep supporter. — JFG talk 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly it needs to be repeated many times, as there are now two editors below who also think the family section should be 'trimmed' from the main template, thus making it the only exception I know of on individual templates. I've seen closers close these type of discussions in under a minute, thus not all closers study the questions raised and site consistency. There is really no need for this template, and if it is closed as 'Keep' certainly the section would stay on the main template if template consistency has any meaning here. Randy Kryn 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim or collapse this material at the main Trump template. Surely we've worked nested navboxes into to something of a science at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and eliminate the family portion from the Donald Trump navbox.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:18, 26 December 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:Norse exploration of the Americas 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Norse exploration of the Americas with Template:NorseAmerica.
duplicate purpose Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 24 December 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:Fool-scale discussion 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 userfy per request. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used three times (can be subst'd there). This is redundant with various other talk page banner templates in the "be civil and keep cool" vein. This one has a flippantly chiding, WP:BITEy tone that shows its age (2007). As humor, it's not really funny, and it sends the wrong message (that the discussion itself is foolish).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gosh, there are so many discussions that this should go at the top of. Keep and spread! But if there's consensus to delete, please move it to my userspace, I could definitely use it. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I had a good laugh at it, but I agree it would look heavy handed if someone were to use it in a thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2017 (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:Shared IP 1 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 2017 January 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (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_December_24&oldid=1138533067"