Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 5

November 5

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) 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template comparable to recently deleted template "Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds"; pls see TfD discussion, the group is listed both in the article it links to, and a list linked to the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 5 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).
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:Date and time templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox seems rather unnecessary. The digital clocks are mostly in userspace (and already in Category:Clock templates), the analog clocks are likely to be deleted soon (they're at TFD), and the "date and time" section is a duplicate of {{date templates}}. In other words: no useful navigation that wasn't there before it was created. Primefac (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems a merge is generally supported and is sensible. Discussion should focus on what the result of a merge should be. Do we merge into the nominated template to create a navbox or merge into Template:Date templates to create something for "see also" sections?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:22, 5 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).
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) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple) with Template:Semi-wikibreak.
These two templates are redundant to each other; and the parent template's longer wording is tautologous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:13, 5 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete tempalte by WP:SOCK editor. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:12, 5 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article, and has very few advantages over the standard <Ref>...</Ref> machinery. Pppery 21:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CITE's admonition not to change reference formats without consensus and per the lack of any other obvious way to obtain this format on the article in question, Phineas Gage. The right way to do this would have been to obtain consensus on Talk:Phineas Gage to change its reference format, then to edit the article to use whatever other format is agreed on, then to delete the orphaned template. Doing it this way instead amounts to a backdoor attempt to go around the local article consensus. And if these templates were to be deleted, then it would still be necessary to obtain consensus on Gage for a new format and to edit the article into another format, so you're not saving any steps by doing it in the wrong order. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreeing with the above. There has already been really extensive discussion and an RFC about the citation style used on Phineas Gage and the design of and reasons for these templates, see the talk archives. --Mirokado (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What D.E. and Mirokado said. Everything that's now standard practice started out as an oddity in an isolated article. EEng 14:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but noting that the most recent RfC at Talk:Phineas Gage ended with a consensus that the formatting of the page, when dealt with in edit mode, is a mess, so there is actually something of a local page consensus against keeping this template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the love of all that’s holy, either chuck this template into the abyss or someone better snow close this fast. Phineas Gage is just dreadful to look at; there are more than 250 instances of "See TfD" and 30 odd "being considered for deletion…. to help reach a consensus." messages in the article. - NQ (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, Pppery could withdraw it. More than enought time has been wasted on this already, including a bizarre edit war [1] in which he insists on the article remaining blighted so that 2000 readers each day have to each look at 500 notifications of this "important deletion discussion" as they read the article. EEng 16:08, 9 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:58, 5 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:56, 5 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:56, 5 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).
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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:51, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:50, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 19:49, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old, unused, and all red links Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates Template:Apayao labelled map Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unused and duplicate indeed. Although at the time of creation, I had thought it would be better than the old labelled map since the new one is an image map, clickable on all parts of the territories. I have no objections if it is deleted, as it does not appear practical for a small map. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:02, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and appears to duplicate navigation found in Template:Kaba class destroyers Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and basically all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused with no parent article Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 5 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).
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) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 5 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).
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) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused or single use templates, should be merged with an article or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 5 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).
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) 02:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused, and redundant to using {{party colour}} or one of the other election table templates. Note that some of the templates with under 10 uses were replaced by me in articles. Frietjes (talk) 12:23, 5 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).
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 Snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 20:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Spam-request with Template:Advert.
Fairly obvious. Spam-request goes into more detail about linkspam, but Advert only mentions "external links" once. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:15, 5 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).
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) 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hardcoded template that is not used on any pages. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 5 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).
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 move to Virgin Radio Bangladesh, then delete per A7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hardcoded template that is not used on any pages. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a misplaced article, see Virgin Radio for other similar articles. It should be moved to Virgin Radio Bangladesh. -- GB fan 10:58, 5 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).
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) 02:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A template based on an obscure German WWII era decoration. The article Fast Attack Craft War Badge lists these recipients and this is sufficient. For a TfD on a comparative template, pls see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Template:Combined Pilots-Observation_Badge_with_Diamonds (the template was deleted). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I keep coming across them randomly; in general, a lot of articles on highly decorated German personnel seem to be "over-templated", almost leading to clutter at the bottom of the page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 5 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).
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) 02:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template was originally created for transclusion at List of Arrow episodes, per addition edit, then the edit was reverted by myself due to incorrect formatting. Once the template was fixed, the templated was reinstated by the creating editor, which was then reverted by another editor. This means that the template is no longer transcluded to any articles. Discussion exists at User talk:Brojam § Ratings template. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:07, 5 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).