Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 31 November 2 >

November 1 edit

Template:Bhad Bhabie 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) Nihlus 00:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article for a song exists; the rest cannot be navigated to as they have no articles. Ss112 21:38, 1 November 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:2013 Victory League table 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates table in 2013 Football Federation Tasmania season#2013 NPL Tasmania Frietjes (talk) 21:25, 1 November 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:Pies Descalzos track listing 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) Nihlus 00:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, track listing templates have been generally deprecated in favour of using the chronology links in the infobox, and the list of singles/songs in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 1 November 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:Pharmacology journals 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, the standard way of navigating between journals in a particular category is to use the parent category. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 1 November 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:Phases of matter (classical elements) 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates navigation found in Template:Classic element Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 1 November 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:Niki & The Dove 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) Nihlus 00:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles include one album and single (from the same album) so navigation isn't improved by this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --woodensuperman 11:13, 7 November 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:Periods of pre-Mongol Mongolia 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates navigation found in Template:History of Mongolia Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 1 November 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:Participate in TWMC 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, TWMC was Nov 15, 2011 - Feb 29, 2012 so not likely that this will be used in the future Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 1 November 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:Paraguay NFT results 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and almost entirely redlinks Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 1 November 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:Panama Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship 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 G7 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, squad membership is preserved in 2012 FIFA Futsal World Cup squads#.C2.A0Panama Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 1 November 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:Palau presidential election, 2004 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates Palauan general election, 2004#President Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnecessary. Number 57 12:47, 5 November 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:Zimbabwe Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy 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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh didn't make it out of the qualifying round and the members of all the squads are already stored in 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as template is used for nav purposes. It is not football kind of qualifying round. So, what is wrong? Störm (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's been well-established here at TfD that we don't keep roster navigational boxes for non-medal-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now the template has been inserted in all the articles related to Zimbabwean cricketers who have played in the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy. Abishe (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:49, 1 November 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:England Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy 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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka didn't make it past the group stage and the members of all the squads are already stored in 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my previous comment. We generally have such templates and same is true for other sports where participating teams have templates of their squads. This is different from Olympics medal winning team. Störm (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's been well-established here at TfD that we don't keep roster navigational boxes for non-medal-winning or non-championship-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the templates generally used in articles related to cricket are acceptable and templates cannot be compared with separate article for squads as you mentioned 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads without needing templates. Abishe (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:49, 1 November 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:Nicolae Ceaușescu 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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a proper navigational aid, most of this is only tangentially related at best Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (?), seems a fine template. I came here for another template and find things like this up for deletion. 'Not a proper nav aid', 'tangentially related', no, it is a perfectly fine template. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly tangentially related entries. Titles that he held, or floods and earthquakes, etc, that happened to occur during his Presidency are not directly related to him. --woodensuperman 15:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, the four family member links + the parent article is enough for a navbox, even with out the other links. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 2 November 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:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site 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. Most comments are in favor of keeping until a merger can be achieved per the recent RfC. This will be a slow process, and there should be no rush to get rid of one template over the other until everything is in order. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork of {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • From what I can see, one uses wikidata, the other does not. Given that wikidata is likely going to be restricted even further from use on ENWP, this nomination should be reversed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC on Infobox_World_Heritage_Site has been closed with a result revert back to the non-Wikidata version.[1] There is a proposed bot-request[2] that would juggle existing articles to temporarily use a new wikidata-only template so that Infobox_World_Heritage_Site can be converted to non-wikidata. However I'd like to ping Mike Peel and Fram as probably the experts on these templates. Would it make sense to simply convert existing articles to this template, rather than juggling and converting Infobox_World_Heritage_Site? I haven't studied the templates enough to have an opinion yet on whether this makes sense or would be desirable. Alsee (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unnecessary fork? It is a better version which avoids the many problems the other template has. Nominating this for deletion during the RfC at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site is more a case of making a WP:POINT than anything else, no actual reason for deletion has been given which would apply here. Fram (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POINTy action was the creation of the nominated template. Get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, improving articles (and on every page this is used on, it has been an improvement over the wikidata version) is such a POINTy action, perhaps you should report me to the wiki-authorities for my actions. Fram (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram removing wikidata from {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} still needs to be sorted out, however once that is completed there is no point in having two non-wikidata templates. Merging (in either direction) seems appropriate. Do you have any objection? Alsee (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, of course at the end we only need one template, however until then (and certainly during the RfC, which Pigsonthewing just happened to oppose, this template was necessary, if only to show the difference with the wikidata one, and to prepare for the transition to a local template again. Basically, the intention is that this version, up for deletion, instead becomes the default. Fram (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well given this appears to be identical except for the lack of wikidata, what is preventing from deleting the other and renaming this to match the articles already using it? Undefined parameters being called? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Parameters in the old one no longer used in the new one; parameters used in the new one not existing in the old one; and a number of instances where the old one is used without parameters (fetching all info from Wikidata) which will not work as is with the new one of course. Yes, it's quite a mess. Fram (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary KEEP until we can MERGE all World_Heritage infoboxes to {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. That is the best merge destination, as it is the name already used in a vast number of articles. However the merge may need to be put on hold while we sort out the current mess at {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}, with the Wikidata code moved to {{Infobox World Heritage Site/wikidata}}, as per [3]. This new template was a POINT-y fork from the main template to have a non-wikidata version, and if the wikidata version is split off then it doesn't make sense to have two non-wikidata versions. Note that discussion is ongoing at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#Implementation_of_RfC, and this discussion really should have been kept in one place rather than there, here, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_4#Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site.2FWikidata... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pointy fork as in "show that the local version has all the possibilities the Wikidata version has, and none of the problems"? I agree, that was exactly my point. The Wikidata code should be deleted, per the RfC outcome. While I agree that it doesn't make sense to have two non-wikidata versions, at the time I created this one there was no non-wikidata version, so this wasn't so senseless then. Fram (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, leaving aside the Wikidata angle, why do you want to have this separate from {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} exactly? Mike Peel (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Fram said above, at the end we only need one template. The reason it is currently separate is because that was the only way to work on it until the wikidata gets cleared out. Alsee (talk) 14:13, 10 November 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_November_1&oldid=1136430045"