Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12 edit

Template:Editnotices/Page/ATV 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) 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed to delete per CSD T3 "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template" ..of the standard dab page editnotice which is shown at the same time when editing ATV. If any improvement to the standard dab editnotice is needed, this second duplicate and currently incorrect editnotice is not the place, but the standard one is. Widefox; talk 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template "isn't correct about redlinks - they are allowed per WP:MOSDAB, and duplicates the normal dab editnotice which links to the do's and don't and MOS. The template warns "Attention editors! No red links." which is not correct per WP:DABRED. The template isn't even needed as it duplicates the correct dab editnotice which does correctly say red links are allowed iff ..(link to Wikipedia:DDD) "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere. ... An entry with a redlink must also include a blue link that mentions the term being disambiguated."" Widefox; talk 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: why would you delete? It says that entries in the list require an article first. Lists with redlinks are worthless as they do not point readers to the articles they are seeking. (baffled) -- Alexf(talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also discussion at Talk:ATV#Edit_notice, (excerpt put at top by nom). Widefox; talk 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is just an ordinary dab page, and the rules for entries are the same as for every dab page; we don't need a shouted "Attention Editors", and "No Red Links" is incorrect. Red links are perfectly OK on a dab page as long as there is a blue link in the entry to a page where the topic is discussed. The edit notice also refers to the dab page as a "list", incorrectly, and seems to suggest that sources are needed in the dab page, incorrectly. Altogether likely to cause stress and confusion, and not to help the progress of this dab page. PamD 10:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as confused and unnecessary fork. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's wrong and adds unnecessary clutter to the edit page. People are confused enough about dab pages as it is. — Gorthian (talk) 01:27, 15 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).

Nemzeti Sport Team of the Season 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) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template for a non-notable season award that isn't even notable enough for its own article Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (including below related) Even the team is notable, per WP:Footy the squad template was for current squad only, it is not intended to create template for historical season. If someone is one club man then the article would flooded with 10 or more templates . Matthew_hk tc 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - if there is no article then a corresponding template shouldn't exist. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment forget what agreement on Template: XYZ league Team of the Year , as a honour but already shown in other section, thus delete? ( I don't remember but the argument on keeping youth national team template or not) Matthew_hk tc 10:14, 14 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, redundant, fully-protected template. Redirect to {{shared IP}} and downgrade to template protection. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Reduced to TE protection already. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reason for creating this was as follows. The original version of {{shared IP}} was replaced by one which said "Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!" in large print. 99% of the time that is much better, as it is more friendly. However, there are times when although an IP address is potentially a shared one, it has clearly bee used substantially by one person over a long time, and that person is a persistently disruptive editor who has been blocked repeatedly, and very often one who is evading blocks. In that situation, it is not helpful to encourage the editor to create an account to evade blocks again: indeed, to do so would be contrary to policy. I therefore thought that for such occasions it would be helpful to still have the older version of the template available. When I first created it, I used it with low but significant frequency. More recently I have rarely used it, so I would not be terribly upset if it were deleted, but I don't agree that it is "useless". Even if KATMAKROFAN doesn't see any use for it, does its existence do any harm? Is there any reason that it can't be left in existence for occasions when it could be useful, even if they are rare? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 21:28, 12 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:Scratch Perverts 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 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 29 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:Men's national inline hockey teams 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. I have removed the redlinks, but see there are a bunch of pages up for deletion. NPASR if those pages end up being deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, standard template for national teams of sports. Suggest removing the red linked pages though. Salavat (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but lose the redlinks. Since left? Salavat, who commented above me, is the creator, and I'm not sure what their activity would have to do with the fate of the template anyways. Karunamon ✉ 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but remove the redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 20 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:PIHAawards 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. No redir necessary as the target was also found at all transclusions. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 12 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:PIHA topics 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. No redir necessary as the target was also found at all transclusions. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:15, 12 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:PIHA 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 20 Primefac (talk) 13:27, 20 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:PartofWPPUNJAB 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 but move to a subpage of the WikiProject as discussed. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary template for WikiProject Punjab which only includes an image of a Sikh symbol. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not see this serving any useful purpose. Vanamonde (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Clearly used on every page of the WP:PUNJAB project. I don't think the nominator even notified the wikiproject, so I did. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab/PartofWPPUNJAB. Doesn't need to be in the template namespace. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that this solution is probably the best. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:13, 12 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:2017 UPSL team 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 Delete. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Content is mainly useless, as the dots do not link to a club. The Banner talk 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the map data over to the UPSL page, so feel free to delete the template, as long as you don't go to the UPSL and delete the map, too. It's a very useful map for showing the team locations. Links aren't necessary since it's adjacent to a list of teams and the teams are too dense to show the names at this scale. Kingsoto (talk) 01:22, 12 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:2016 NPSL team 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 Delete. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Content is mainly useless, as the dots do not link to a club. The Banner talk 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links are not the only reason to have a map. It clearly depicts the locations of teams. The teams are too dense to show the names for all of them on the map. Would you prefer this map data was included on the 2016 NPSL page instead of being linked there? Kingsoto (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. @Kingsoto: no other sports team, league or franchise on wikipedia has ever had a map showing locations like this. What precedent is there for adding such a map? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: NPSL and PDL have had maps like this for years. If you don't like the maps, please make them better instead of just deleting them.Kingsoto (talk) 19:55, 12 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/2017_January_12&oldid=1142562413"