Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14 edit

Template:Astralis 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) 04:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One link doesn't warrant a navbox. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Technically, two links, but that doesn't warrant a navbox regardless. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:57, 19 November 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:FTMCR 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 opposition. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and this template won't ever be used because the MedCom has shut down so there is no point marking this template as "historical". Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:40, 14 November 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:FTMCA 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 opposition. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and the MedCom has shut so this template won't ever be used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:36, 14 November 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:2018 China League Two North 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 merge the respective years to a single table. As mentioned in the discussion, there is attribution to consider so please ensure that all appropriate {{copied}} tags and other attribution is given, and redirects are left in place. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:2018 China League Two North table, Template:2018 China League Two South table and Template:2018 China League Two Overall table to Template:2018 China League Two tables.
Propose merging Template:2019 China League Two North table, Template:2019 China League Two South table and Template:2019 China League Two Overall table to Template:2019 China League Two tables.
Why not use one template instead of three by using {{Multiple sports table preview}} like Template:2019 AFC Asian Cup group tables? Here is an example:Template:2019 China League Two tables . Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the original—@G503: No difference. We should keep the original ones. Qby (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Qby and G503: Using one template is more quickly to update than three Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Qby: Also why we should keep the original ones? Can you give us a reasonable reason? Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (redirect) the originals, create new one per nom. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 06:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2018 old templates need to keep page history, so cannot delete but can merge then redirect Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not a huge difference but putting it all on one page would seem to make it easier to update as one would only need to make one edit rather than three. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 22 November 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:IOC name exception 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 opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose. Is used on about 25–30 pages, but to no encyclopedic end. No one needs to be alerted with a giant banner to the fact that an article here has a title different from how some other party would name it, nor why. This was – until just now – a lingering vestige of the efforts of a faction shilling for an off-site organization to impose their erstwhile naming convention on Wikipedia (the author of this template was updating the IOC website with "progress" reports on getting it to be an "official Wikipedia standard", until the WP:BIRDCON RfC shut that stuff down). This disused template was still reflecting that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAPBOX mentality (directly against WP:CONLEVEL policy as well as the RfC results) four years later, so I revised it to neutrally address facts and policy.

However, I now realize that it doesn't have any useful function. We have no reason to create banner templates announcing why an article is at the title it's at; the rationales for a title here vary widely, case-by-case, and are recorded in WP:RM discussions. The template's quasi-purpose, even after cleanup, is therefore entirely redundant. There does not appear to be a single analogue of this template anywhere else on Wikipedia, not even for things that actually are internationally and near-universally accepted standards (which the IOC bird list is not), such as various ISO and ITU, etc. standards. It's just not something we do, much less need banner tags about. The closest thing I can think of is Template:IUPAC spelling, but it's very different: it's instructing editors to use a particular spelling system when writing that article, so it does serve an encyclopedic, editorial function.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; unnecessary, and mostly appears to be for pointing out that we lowercase bird names (or that we use say gray instead of grey) which has no point. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 22 November 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:MoC district 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 for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused after I replaced them in Georgia's 11th congressional district where they were causing formatting problems. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See brief discussion at my talk page, as well as the history of Georgia's 6th congressional district, Georgia's 11th congressional district, and Georgia's 14th congressional district for background. (I'm not sure what formatting problems were being caused by these templates before, but the deletion notice is certainly causing them now...) I still believe that using templates like these is better than using adhoc tables, but I don't have the energy to convince users like GoldRingChip of that. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 12:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need table-formatting templates used on only one or a tiny handful of articles. Either use (or develop better) table-layout templates that have broader applicability (see if some wikiproject people want to work up something more standardized for this kind of information), or just use regular tables like everyone else does everywhere else. At least their markup is consistent and doesn't have to be re-learned on an article-by-article basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:38, 21 November 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:Counter Logic Gaming 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with Dissident93's rationale. Furthermore, I believe that every last one of these esport team template articles need to be deleted. It will require combing through Prisencolin's created articles, but this has and continues to go far too long, unaddressed. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say every single one, because ones like Evil Geniuses can stand because they have more than 2-3 links. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The current template probably merits deletion or defluffing, but that's also because there are appropriate articles not using it. Stephanie Harvey transcludes this template, yet it's not linked from here, and Cheese05 is now signed to the organization. That's eight infoboxes, arguably enough for a navbox. What I'd do is remove the CS:GO and Halo lines, keep the League players, and add "Other players" and then trim down the management to just the guy with an article. Raymie (t • c) 07:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the state of a bunch of other templates, that's what I've gone ahead and done. This one is salvageable, unlike some of its peers. Raymie (t • c) 08:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raymie, there's definitely notability here with lots of active relevant links. Could arguably get even larger if former players are included, for all that this opens a can of worms. SnowFire (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Raymie version. I agree there are others that probably need to be examined. I have concerns, however, about the WP:WITCHHUNT tone being brought by DarthBotto, above, about Prisencolin's contributions. That's really not appropriate, absent something like a community ban or a long-term block specifically for creating material against our policies. The topic area, its near unencyclopedic nature (much like YouTubers), the amount of COI editing at gamer articles, and the poor quality of the articles that can actually survive GNG, is the problem (or set of problems); some particular editor is not the problem. I.e., "focus on content, not editors".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree about it being a "witchhunt", as a number of these templates created/inspired by Prisencolin have been deleted through discussion here for the same exact reasons (including one below). Before Raymie's edits, the same was true about this navbox. Now however, it's worth keeping. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SMcCandlish: I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. This editor is queried on about a daily basis - sometimes multiple times - and they refuse to engage in dialogue, even when getting blocked. Also, nearly every esport article up for deletion is authored by them. They have been asked to talk... literally hundreds of times. I apologize if it comes across as a sour tone, but it's also an extenuating circumstance. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:11, 22 November 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:100 Thieves 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Now this one isn't working. Three transclusions in, one of them a former player. Raymie (t • c) 07:49, 20 November 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_November_14&oldid=871341774"