Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5 edit

Template:Sandbox guide 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⚡ 02:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main template unused; all subtemplates used only on Template:User sandbox+/doc, so there is no reason to store them as separate templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.   ManosHacker talk 20:31, 5 March 2018 (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:In creation 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. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Articles should not be created if they are 'in creation.' This template perfectly describes what the draft space is for. This is only promoting the creation of proto-articles, against policy. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As an unnecessary fork of {{in use}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful tool when creating articles. The 'Draft' system is so slow it puts editors off creating articles. I would suggest putting a time limit on it's use though. Creating an article using this template in say 10 minutes I don't see as a problem, using it to create an article over days is a different matter. John B123 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In case of guided contributing, or for editathons, this template is useful.   ManosHacker talk 21:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this template for a specific, useful purpose, creating articles in the main space through a rapid series of incremental saves — so as to avoid losing a lot of work if there is a dropped connection or some other error. There is no policy requiring use of draft namespace, which can be cumbersome, and doesn't allow building up incoming links while creating a new article. It is intended to avoid conflicts with overeager page patrollers over the space of minutes to perhaps half an hour, not for keeping unfinished articles for longer periods. I've used it probably 20-30 times, and to my knowledge none of these articles were subsequently deleted. As far as I know this template has not been misused, and if anyone does, that's a problem with their editing behavior, not the template. The in use template addresses a completely different issue, avoiding edit conflicts on existing articles that are heavily edited, for a period of a few hours. It's not really appropriate for indicating an article in creation. It could be parameterized for that purpose, in which case this template would be superfluous. That seems like a lot of work, unless someone wants to implement it. I would support adding an instruction that it should not be used for longer than 30 minutes or an hour. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikidemon: +1 This discussion was precipitated by an overeager page patroller deleting a page I had created literally within a minute despite the In creation template. John B123 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: The page was created in 2013, actually. And I moved it, I don't have the permissions required to delete pages. In any case, there is no excuse for putting an unacceptably incomplete article in the mainspace just because you plan on working on it within the next few minutes, or within the next few days. There is reason for non article spaces. Don't create pseudo articles. It doesn't help anyone and makes WP look amateur. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is every reason. This about creating an encyclopedia, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@El cid, el campeador: The page was created in 2013 as a redirect to a broader article. After trying to add content to make this an article rather than a redirect, a minute later you moved it to draft. You also flagged the redirect page created by the move for speedy deletion. WP:R2 talks of waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. When moving a page to draft, categories should be disabled as per WP:DRAFTIFY, otherwise drafts appear in categories. This was ignored. What was that about "makes WP look amateur"? Would also add that when creating a page there is nothing to suggest that you can't create an article directly on the page. John B123 (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{in use}}. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "in creation" template includes language specific to new articles. The "in use" template does not fit as well. -- Oa01 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: Thematic editathons start articles directly in main space, as new accounts cannot move a page from their space to main space, and the content might remain (lost) there after the event. There is a big chance for a new editor to save (publish) the page in a very early stage and directly continue writing more. This template fits perfectly, while "in use" one does not.   ManosHacker talk 14:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New accounts cannot create pages anymore in main namespace due to WP:ACTRIAL Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest just writing the article in draft/your userspace and then moving it to article space when you're done with it (that's what I do..) - but anyhow, I think there likely isn't too much harm from this - it could be merged with {{in use}} though, perhaps Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of its utility when staging edit-a-thons. Thanks --TimK MSI (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if it's only occasionally useful, it's still occasionally useful. GMGtalk 19:37, 15 March 2018 (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:Reading Fightin Phils 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 01:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 5 March 2018 (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:Deen Castronovo 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 2018 March 13. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:15, 13 March 2018 (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:NIFWA International Personality of the Year 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 01:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines as, while the award exists and may be considered notable, we have no article about it and it is therefore unsourced; I am unable to find a full list of winners anywhere in order to verify its accuracy. Jellyman (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If the award is notable, it should have an article. --woodensuperman 12:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not required, appears to be minor award. GiantSnowman 11:54, 6 March 2018 (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:Pakistani conflicts and wars detailed 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. This is a war map template. However, there is no war in Pakistan. There is some trouble related to Taliban/Al-Qaeda near the border with Afghanistan. However, this does not warrant a war map for Pakistan. There is already Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map where we have the area of Pakistan where there is trouble related to Taliban/Al-Qaeda. I want to note that I am also nominating the associated module for deletion as well: Module:Pakistani conflicts and wars detailed map.

The Pakistan template should have never been created. As of now, you can see that it is copying the content from Template:Taliban insurgency detailed map with the code at the beginning of the module Module:Pakistani conflicts and wars detailed map: 

 secondaryModules = {
		[[Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map]]
	},

and then adding the places in Pakistan as government held for all of them. So in other terms, it is a map of “Pakistani conflicts”, yet it shows zero conflict in Pakistan! (all the action being in Afghanistan).

The map has not been updated in about a year (because nothing is happening). Moreover, many people might put time and effort into a useless and unused template. In any case, I have the code saved on my computer if there is ever a war in Pakistan and we need to re-create this template. Tradediatalk 09:56, 5 March 2018 (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/2018_March_5&oldid=830741318"