Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9 edit

Template:123 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. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variant of Template:adr, also nominated for deletion. However, this template and ADR are substantively different. Still, I support deletion for 123 in light of the confusion that it causes. Using pipes is a standard method for adjusting the output of a link. It's something that almost all users understand. The issue with using templates like this is that they are not easily understood, and furthermore they are not intuitive. There's no better evidence for that than the fact that most of the "Example" uses of this template do not work - see the 5 example codes, which are paired with 4 outputs ... 3 of which return red links. This template is only used on less than twenty pages.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template was created as something totally different and replaced in March by the creator of {{adr}} with the existing contents. Though I think neither version is worth keeping, participants in this discussion should take this into account. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, obfuscates linking. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as noted by nominator, this doesn't appear to do what it's intended to do, and using it is harder than using normal linking. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 19 April 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:Ambox/small 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. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to be in use anymore; Module:Message box does not appear to contain any code associated with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 9 April 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:Db-spamuser-sandbox 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 redirect to Template:Db-spamuser. The wording is close enough between the two templates that there seems little point to update {{db-spamuser}}, though obviously if someone feels strongly they are welcome to make the edit request. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with {{db-spamuser}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user sandbox IS-A userpage, thus it's completely superseded with nothing to merge. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom wants to delete, only !vote wants to merge. Relisting to gain more thoughts on that difference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alter the wording of Template:Db-spamuser, so as to clarify that it applies to all pages in the User: namespace. ~barakokula31 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{db-spamuser}}, since there's nothing wrong with the title and nothing in the history that needs to be hidden. If we delete it, we'd confuse people who are currently using this template, rather than db-spamuser, to tag spammy userspace sandboxes, and we don't gain anything by making things harder for them. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 19 April 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:WNBA labeled map 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 April 19. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 April 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:KCwithOLandSW 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. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to the existing article List of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and is thus unneeded. It is also redundant to the Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.

In addition, the subjects are not related apart from having received the same award from Nazi Germany during World War II, and the template is not useful for navigation. A similar template on the U-boat recipients has been deleted in the past:

Finally, the template is excessive, listing more than 120 names. A similarly excessive template has been recently deleted:

This is a similar case. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 9 April 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 4th MD 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. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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 227th 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only three blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

  • Merge with related navboxes, for example the navboxes for the 293rd and 3rd Infantry Divisions (nominated in the below TfDs). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 11 April 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 293rd 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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 3rd 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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 26 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. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead 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. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not reflect a policy or guideline. Furthermore, the apparent function of this template - to suggest that a particular source is unreliable - duplicates {{unreliable source}} so it's totally redundant. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pingining @JzG: who wrote User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unhelpful. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful and because it misguidedly directs people to the website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 05:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lame excuse for a template, nom. L3X1 (distant write) 14:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per L3X1. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Why it was created is beyond me (other than to suggest that Econlib.org only re-publishes works available on Wikisource. In fact it publishes original material from highly notable economists, like Nobel Prize winners. Duh!? – S. Rich (talk) 13:32, 15 April 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:Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team/meta/shortname 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost completely unused, purpose unclear Mélencron (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, purpose is very clear, but since it's not used, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 10 April 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:Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team/meta/color 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost completely unused, purpose unclear Mélencron (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, purpose is very clear, but since it's not used, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 April 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:The Left (Germany)/meta/abbr 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

were only used on Wikipedia:Index of Germany political party meta attributes and now orphaned. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 9 April 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:Isotope list 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 all but {{isotope list}}.. ACCESS concerns have been raised regarding {{isotope index}}, so while there is no opposition to deleting the subpages, the main template will be relisted to 19 April. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination following the closing of this AFD. The articles these templates were used on are now deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of templates
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:Did you know nominations/gotrig.com 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 G2 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless DYK created for Draft:Gotrig.com Marvellous Spider-Man 13:56, 9 April 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:Selfsubst/ language/js 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. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to be in use anymore, judging by the lack of transclusions and the insource: search Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 9 April 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:C. S. Peirce external links 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 substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory and posting this in several articles basically ensures that many of these external links will not really be relevant to that particular article. I suggest culling the links, substituting the template, and deleting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • substitute in the articles, then prune where possible. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 9 April 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:Big Black Button 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. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for a couple non-admin sandboxes, and seems unnecessary. Only admins can delete pages anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 9 April 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:Big White Button 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. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for a couple non-admin sandboxes, and seems unnecessary. Only admins can delete pages anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 9 April 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:American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers 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 per this and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of television presenters, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or move to a list article, better to use a category/article for navigating between announcers. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently no individual or respective list for the Stanley Cup Finals television broadcasters (as it has since been deleted), so this might as well be the "second best" option for the time being. And plus, it would be much easier to navigate if the info is "right in front of you". BornonJune8 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a category would fail WP:PERFCAT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Announcers are not performers or entertainers, so WP:PERFNAV does not apply. And since the article was deleted, this is the second-best option and the information should be somewhere as it is significant and notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, sports announcers like this are broadcast news journalists (albeit for live sporting events), not "performers" like say entertainers in the traditional sense. BornonJune8 (talk), 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are television presenters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're only speaking in the broad sense to make your point. Just because they're "TV presenters" in your words, doesn't automatically mean that a sports announcer specialize in the exactly same thing as say a game show host or late night talk show host. BornonJune8 (talk), 23:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 9 April 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).

Box and Column templates 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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for producing HTML DIV boxes and columns, created by one editor for use in one article (List of useful Unicode symbols) that has now been deleted. These templates are now unused, and are unlikely to be used by anyone other than their creator. Note that 韭 is a redirect to ColBox, and 䧕 is a redirect to BoxD, and were created as space-saving shortcuts (apparently the Chinese character 䧕 looks like the English word "Box", and the Chinese character 韭 looks like columns in a table). BabelStone (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These are very useful templates. Can be used by many others, if its kept & not-deleted. These are created for about one week only. I will use these on pages, under my userspace. -- AtErik1 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete of templates as unused with possible accessibility issues. This isn't RFD, but strong delete those redirects - Wikicode is not an obfuscation contest. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we seem to have other similar templates already which have wider usage. Thus these may be redundant.  -- ]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR ═╣ 21:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace or delete, clearly we don't need these. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do 䧕 and "box" have to do with each other? It's "country", if I remember rightly from its appearance on postage stamp inscriptions, and the character itself looks nothing like a box, unless you're using a browser that can't support any CJK characters: in which case all Chinese characters look like little boxes, □. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 19 April 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:Prod hint 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 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 April 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/2017_April_9&oldid=1138532531"