Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24 edit

Template:User:Raju Babu/Infobox 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; could be moved to userspace Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I myself wanted to delete this template, but I have no authority so please delete it. I just created it as a test page, because I edit Wiki on mobile, so it takes more time to do any activity, if I use Template:Sandbox or Template:X1... after some hours these pages are cleaned by someone, so i needed a template test page that could last more hours.  👤Raju💌 00:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. Orientls (talk) 11:32, 26 September 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:Sgcite 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 October 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 2 October 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 Rugby World Cup Sevens Papua New Guinea men's roster 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. All content has been substed in 2018 Rugby World Cup Sevens squads – Men and 2018 Rugby World Cup Sevens squads – Women at Special:Diff/861504479 and Special:Diff/861519641 respectively. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One or no links and not used in any articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:45, 24 September 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:IAMilitary 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 delete per author request. Hut 8.5 20:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused. DH85868993 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. I created it, but it was never populated TDRSS (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)]][reply]
  • delete or speedy delete per author approval. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 24 September 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).

Discontinued switch templates for Template:Infobox Olympic games 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer desired and put out of use, per the outcome of a discussion to make parameters in {{Infobox Olympic games}} fully editable. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - that's not an outcome of a discussion, rather than list of your suggestions. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10: Four in support, one against. It's a clear consensus. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 users supported, 1 was against this specific change. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:11, 2 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) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to keep the content in the articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears you have already obliterated the content so there is nothing to save, which sure seems improper, like a decision has been predetermined. However, in other TfDs the question that has not been answered is: How will you retain the edit history of the content you substed to the main articles. Once these Templates disappear, so does the history and so does the checks and balances they afford. Trackinfo (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • if the edit history is that important, you can move it to an articlespace redirect to the associated articles (e.g., a redirect to Olympic Games ceremony). Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: I'll go ahead and replace {{Infobox Olympic games/host city}} with a native host city parameter for {{Infobox Olympic torch relay}} and clean up all uses of the latter template, then. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:50, 2 October 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:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no conditions that could be added other than attribution that would be considered "free enough" for Wikipedia. (If the condition is "attribution", then {{attribution}} can be used for that purpose and this template is redundant.) If the condition is anything else, then it's not free enough. This template is a holdover from the olden days when "Wikipedia-only" or "educational use" images used to be permitted. B (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Copyrighted free use provided that, delete Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided. I think the explanation is right. Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is not in use and therefore can be deleted. However, Template:Copyrighted free use provided that is in use. Orphaning it will require reviewing each use on a file to determine whether it is an error, whether a different template is appropriate instead (for example, Template:Attribution or a fair use rationale), or whether the file is inconsistent with current policy and should be deleted. I think TfD should not be the process for doing that and, in that sense, the template is still useful. I think a better approach would be to change the template itself to advise that review is required to ensure the file complies with current policy. --Bsherr (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The former duplicates {{Attribution}} by default and duplicates the latter by parameter use. The current uses of the latter template are restricted to non-commercial, no-derivative, personal-use-only (there's only about 50 of them)--and in this regard, those uses are entirely inappropriate given that the template says exactly not to place this template on those pages. (Most of them also have {{Non-free symbol}}.) --Izno (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. —Mythdon 09:46, 29 September 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:Ruth Goodman 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not series creator per WP:FILMNAV. --woodensuperman 11:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We have a set of TV series, where navigation between them is obviously valuable. Their linking factor is Ruth Goodman (it's not merely "she appeared in"). This is exactly what FILMNAV advocates. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is she the primary creator of these series? No? Per WP:FILMNAV: "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question". There is also the matter of WP:UNDUE, where a navbox for her is included on the programmes, and not those of her co-presenters. Completely inappropriate to have a navbox for her television career. --woodensuperman 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please stop re-adding the "collaborators", these are in no way appropriate for navbox inclusion. --woodensuperman 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FILMNAV is a guideline, not strict policy. It states, "This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article" yet the point with these articles is that they are created and branded (certainly the later ones) around the presence of Ruth Goodman as a branding exercise for marketing that production. Other contributors would be replaceable, but she would not. And although there are several candidates to be Lucy Worsley, there's only one Ruth Goodman. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her article states that "From 2005 to 2014, Goodman participated in all six of the BBC Historic Farms series. Since 2015, Goodman has presented segments within the BBC television series Inside the Factory." This doesn't seem sufficient to fulfil the equivalent of a "primary creator" role to me. --woodensuperman 15:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So as well as not knowing who founded the People's Vote before you set out to delete that navbox, you're also basing your whole knowledge of these productions on Wikipedia?! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting point though. Gregg Wallace was the presenter of Inside the Factory, yet no-one is suggesting listing him here or anywhere similar. Nor Bill Bailey in relation to QI. Both of them are top-end presenters playing a highly visible role, but could be interchanged with several others without major impact. Yet these programs are unthinkable in this form without Ruth Goodman. She is a primary creator of these series, as required here. Whilst The Show Must Go On were she to suffer some terrible medieval plague, her replacement would no doubt be found, but it would then change the fundamentals of these shows. I can't imagine Janina Ramirez trampling woad. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you provide sources that verify she is a primary creator of all the shows in the navbox, rather than just state your own opinion on her irreplacability. --woodensuperman 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given already that WP:FILMNAV seems to weigh against this navbox, it further seems to me that Ms. Goodman isn't central enough to these various productions that navigation between them would be useful to a reader without first visiting Ms. Goodman's own article. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be much better suited to a "Filmography" section or something. We don't have navboxes for every actor/actress. —Mythdon 09:49, 29 September 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_September_24&oldid=862175006"