Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23 edit

Template:Lc1 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 to Template:Lx. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Lc1 with Template:Lx.
Right now, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion deletion nominations are styled as:

Category:Foo - (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No other XfD uses monospace font (which is reserved for showing code or input). No other XfD uses both a hyphen (which should be a dash) and parenthesis to separate the page name from the links.

To accomplish this, CfD transcludes {{Lc1}}, which itself transcludes {{Lx}} with its own parameter "cfd2", which is there solely to create this weird formatting for CfD.

I'd like to propose we simply use {{Lx}} in its normal use, which will produce:

Category:Foo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Such a solution would be implemented by deleting Template:Lc1 and replacing it with, or redirecting it to, Template:Lx, which is why this discussion is here at TfD. But at the least, I would like to eliminate the hyphen and the monospacing in favor of a wider but proportionally spaced font. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Strong support. –User456541 22:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:Lc1 and replace with Template:Lx (there's nothing to merge, in my view). I spend a lot of time at CfD, and I never understood why there was (or saw any reason for) a separate template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. This is both weird and pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 25 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:User WP Veneto 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 procedural close and relist at MFD. Will copy over !votes. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WikiProject Veneto. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Speedy keep since it is a template from WikiProject Italy. –User456541 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Italy WP project uses Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, per nom. I could find no indication that WikiProject Italy uses this template; in fact, not a single user currently uses this template, and there are other, less misleading templates that can be used to indicate interest in or some other connection to Veneto. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrong venue, user boxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 25 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:User WikiProject Veneto 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⚡ 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WikiProject Veneto. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, per nom, and unused. There are other, less misleading templates that can be used to indicate interest in or some other connection to Veneto. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrong venue, user boxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 25 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:User WP Lombardy 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. Mainly to avoid another week's worth of (pointless?) debate, but also because there is no opposition. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WikiProject Lombardy for this template to demonstrate affiliation with. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, per nom, and unused. There are other, less misleading templates that can be used to indicate interest in or some other connection to Lombardy. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrong venue, user boxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 25 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:User WikiProject Lombardy 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. Mainly to avoid another week's worth of (pointless?) debate, but also because there is no opposition. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WikiProject Lombardy for this template to demonstrate affiliation with. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, per nom, and unused. There are other, less misleading templates that can be used to indicate interest in or some other connection to Lombardy. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrong venue, user boxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four of these (above) as having no project referents. These could probably be speedied as non-controversial maintenance. Not concerned about venue trivia, per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, especially given both the speediability, and these templates purporting to be about an actual WP resource which doesn't really exist; they are not pure "userland", but a valid TfD matter in my view. MfD normally has jurisdiction over U-boxes because they're normally "nano-essays", in a sense, expressing an interest or opinion; these are different, and are broken navigation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 25 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).

Infobox settlement wrappers 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 after replacing/substing to use {{Infobox settlement}}. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst then delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A while ago I added an infobox to Patagonia, based on the far more detailed example at Wallonia. Regions are well-served by the Settlement box, no reason for these separate iterations to exit. /maybe/ a dedicated region infobox might work, but right now there's no reason for that as far as I can tell. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:50, 26 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:FTMC 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) 02:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't ever be used because the Mediation Committee has shut down. The three templates which this template is being used on have all been nominated for deletion as unused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:27, 23 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:MC Reject 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) 02:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't ever be used because the Mediation Committee has shut down. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 23 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:FTMCRi 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) 02:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't ever be used because the Mediation Committee has shut down. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:21, 23 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:FTMCRp 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) 02:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't ever be used because the Mediation Committee has shut down. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:21, 23 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:FTMCRt 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) 02:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't ever be used because the Mediation Committee has shut down. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:20, 23 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:Roads opened in year cat 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⚡ 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused.

All the pages on which it was used were deleted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 18#Category:Roads_by_year_of_opening. This template should have been deleted at the same time, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 23 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:Infobox controversial invention 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) 00:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9 transclusions total, including those outside of mainspace. All articles on which it is transcluded consist of perpetual motion hoaxes, except for MOS-failing one about psychoanalysis in which the stated controversy is "Para-Freudian" without any further content about it.

In fact, the template seems design primarily for pseudoscientific inventions (that no one ever sees in person). But the name (IMO) suggests that it is for inventions that were indisputably created, but either its efficacy is questioned (many hoax inventions) or inventions that actually accomplish the intended goal, but there are people with moral concerns, safety concerns, etc (nuclear reactor, sex toy, peer-to-peer, selfie stick). But how would we determine to determine which inventions are controversial enough? And is it even necessary? Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Speedy delete. –User456541 11:55, 24 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:Infobox collection 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) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 transclusions, and I'm sure there better Infoboxes for this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unless Mr. Guye can provide examples of proposed replacements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I do not any issue for this template and reasons provided by nominator is not a good reason to delete Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:35, 23 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).

BLP special enforcement 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 delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration Committee remedy allowed administrators to take broad measures to enforce the BLP policy, known as special enforcement, but was later superseded by motion providing for general discretionary sanctions instead. The current user warning templates (BLP and defamation series) are adequate to address the new discretionary sanctions remedy. As a result, the template scheme for enforcing the superseded special enforcement remedy became deprecated. These templates, some of which have already been redirected or soft redirected, can now be deleted, as a reinstatement of this remedy is unlikely and there is little historical value in retaining them. --Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 23 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:Infobox bottled water 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 Speedy keep / Withdraw due to @Bsherr's parameter–based argument. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 43 transclusions. We have multiple beverage infoboxes. Why not one of those?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr. Guye, you should link to the "beverage infoboxes" that you think can replace this infobox. Orientls (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The parameters for this infobox are entirely different from Template:Infobox drink, the next closest fit. Using Inforbox drink would produce an absurd result as currently encoded. --Bsherr (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:14, 23 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_23&oldid=871720751"