Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18 edit

Template:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India 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 November 27 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 27 November 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:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total 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) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total with Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total Adder.
The only difference between these two templates is their behavior when an error occurs, which seem like a perfect example of a distinction that should be provided by a parameter rather than a wrapper. Pppery 22:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - especially when it appears that the former is set up to not have errors. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 26 November 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:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012, header 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. Nabla (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Description}}. Pppery 22:44, 18 November 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:Nuclide 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) 23:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Nuclide with Template:Nuclide2.
This template has been deprecated since 2009, but is still around, and is used on 108 pages. It invokes {{nuclide2}} over a bit of syntax about the way it requests a link. suggest merging, and renaming the merged template {{nuclide}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who created this mess, I strongly agree to the merger. If I had the possibility to do this myself, I would have done so a long time ago. But manually editing ask those pages was never an option for me. — SkyLined (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the merger is a good idea, and {{tfm}} on {{nuclide}} is probably fine, but putting {{tfm}} on {{nuclide2}} ruins a lot of nice tables. See activation product for example. If we put {{tfm}} only on {{nuclide}}, until most of those are changed over, would that be good enough? Do we have to ruin all the others, until this is complete? Gah4 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am actively working on tables using {{nuclide2}} and this change ruins all the tables! I tried to revert only on {{nuclide2}}, as that is supposed to be the good one, but it was rereverted. If this is going to be only for a few days, I suppose I can live with it, but if it will be months or years, no. Since {{nuclide}} has been deprecated for nine years, do I expect this change to be fast? Gah4 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: a lot of work for a tiny bit of gain. Hopefully people will see the deprecated note and not use {{nuclide}} template in new pages. Typing an extra 2 isn't all that hard to do. Gah4 (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to learn templates, but don't know bots at all. I suspect a bot could easily convert the {{nuclide}} to the appropriate {{nuclide2}}, then, in a separate operation, move back to {{nuclide}}. I wouldn't have called that merge, though, and there is no need to mess up all the pages to do it. According to deprecated, one should be able to convert them over. If a bot can do it, it should be pretty easy, but I am not very interested in doing 100 pages by hand. Personally, I am generating tables with programs, and it doesn't make much difference what it is called. Gah4 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked a little on how to do bots, but didn't figure out how easy it would be to do. Since it is easy for the bot to find which tables to edit, it should be pretty easy for a bot expert. Gah4 (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. We don't need nasty deprecated old templates lying around to confuse people. You could ask at WP:BOTREQ to get a bot to make the necessary replacements. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion on the question (though merging strikes me as a good idea, with a bot to make all the changes); I mainly write to note that user Sporkbot seems to have jumped the gun in editing the articles Beta decay and Discovery of the neutron which I watch, assuming this discussion has had an outcome already (Sporkbot assumes merge is the outcome of this discussion, I think). No objection to the change, just that one should wait for an actual outcome before invoking it on an edit, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 23:26, 26 November 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:Dragons' Den (Canada) 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) 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once we remove the cast and crew per WP:PERFNAV, there is nothing left worth navigating. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Completely useless as a template. Parsley Man (talk) 03:20, 24 November 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:U.S. statewide elected officials 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 listify if possible. ~ Rob13Talk 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one page, and many of the links are in conflict with WP:EGG Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's useful to the reader for finding statewide elected officials Orser67 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orser67, why are some of the links to templates and some to articles? The links for Alaska, Alabama, Florida, and Iowa (for example) all go to very different types of types of templates and types of articles. wouldn't it be better to have a list article for all the states? Frietjes (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. And as nom points out, we shouldn't be linking to other templates in this way. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 07:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 10:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13:, any reason why you are continuing to relist this when the only person saying "keep" says that creating a list article instead is "a good idea"? Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Frietjes: Mostly because listing this in the listify section of WP:TFD/H is costly/takes a lot of editor time to complete. If we're going that route, I'd prefer to ensure there's consensus for it. (I never relist more than twice, for the record.) ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 18 November 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:Soulhead 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 with Template:Soulhead albums Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Template:Soulhead singles, should probably be merged (or the singles template moved to this title after deleting this one) Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss a possible merge. If a merge does occur, note that it should probably be a merge into {{Soulhead albums}}, not away from the already transcluded and larger template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 10:24, 18 November 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:Stretch Arm Strong 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) 00:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the entries were notable. Nothing to navigate to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 18 November 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:PD-USGov-USDA-FS 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) 00:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 04:32, 18 November 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:PD-USGov-Treasury 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) 00:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 04:31, 18 November 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:PD-USGov-DOL 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) 00:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 04:25, 18 November 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:Query web archive 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 November 26 ~ Rob13Talk 05:58, 26 November 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:Western Pacific Railroad lines 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 November 26 ~ Rob13Talk 05:58, 26 November 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:Asian Games Record 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 05:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The intention of this template was to replace the many we have at Category:Asian Games templates which duplicate the same function needlessly. It looks like the uses I applied have been since removed. I still think this is a useful piece of clean up to do. SFB 00:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Sillyfolkboy: Could you provide some examples of your past uses in articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:09, 18 November 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:Art Nouveau 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) 22:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think if this were inserted into articles it could be really useful and help promote new articles. I think we should give the template another chance! --Turn➦ 16:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and insert into relevant articles. Hopefully, this should prompt some community feedback and if it's not favourable the template could then get deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 22 November 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:World Press Freedom Organizations 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 ~ Rob13Talk 05:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now used. @Frietjes: Do you still want to delete this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 18 November 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_November_18&oldid=1140133170"