Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 15 February 17 >

February 16 edit

Template:TopicLogic 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singe-use pseudo-navbox. Not useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 16 February 2020 (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:Article Incubator 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⚡ 08:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:Article Incubator was wound down in January 2014. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 16 February 2020 (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:2010 football in Sweden 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. kingboyk (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused; articles are using the standard footer template series instead (e.g., Template:2010 in Swedish football). Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:40, 19 February 2020 (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:Iranian rock 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. The arguments are fair and rational on both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, we do not have similar navboxes for other countries, but this particular navbox appears small enough that it would not be unreasonable to include on an article. There is no prejudice against restructuring, but if after doing so it is determined that either the criteria is too vague or the listed groups are not actually rock groups (leaving too few for a reasonable navbox) there is no prejudice against renomination. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a serial hoaxer, and made up of a number of the hoaxes they created. I think it was created merely to lend credence to their hoaxes. While this could be a useful template, I'm afraid it warrants a WP:TNT due to the circumstances of its creation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep CaptainEek, I don't know what you mean by "serial hoaxer." Nevertheless, what's wrong with this template? If it's related to the articles themselves, those should be AfD'd. I personally don't subscribe to the "delete everything of a sockpuppet" ideology. I think it should be case-by-case. I don't see a clear enough case for WP:TNT. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user who created the template has made at least 10 hoaxes, maybe more, almost all about Iranian rock music, or other Iranian topics. I've been going around trying to cleanup the mess they made. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, see Category:Rock music navigational boxes which has no other country-specific rock navboxes. creating one of these for every country would be a very bad idea. this is exactly why we have categories, because it removes the need to update the box everything there is a new article about an Iranian rock group, and avoids the WP:OR of selective inclusion. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dmehus. This is not a reason for a deletion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having taking a look at the template I found a few issues. Some of the articles listed didn't even mention "rock"; 2 were red links. A few others are tagged with {{Hoax}}. These alone are already enough of a red flag to question the validity of all entries. Additionally, we don't have a "US rock" or "British rock" template (I couldn't find one when I search for them), and I don't think this is a good idea to start a convention of creating these for a few reasons. Group1 is "pioneers" - who said so? This is complete WP:OR. Group2 is "groups" - do we list them all? So in the US example, do we list hundreds of articles? Group3 is "Persons" - who decides what is listed here? This template is completely bad idea. --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure per Gonnym's analysis to why the current grouping is original research. I suggest sorting the entries by decade to avoid this. If any of the enteries are hoaxes or otherwise dubious the solution is to delete or rewrite the article in question not deleting the navbox. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a little more input as to whether it should be deleted or restructured.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles seem genuine and the navbox is useful for purposes of navigation between the articles. However this is kept (eg. if restructured or not) I leave to other commentators. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes --kingboyk (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2020 (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:Editnotices/Page/Shyne 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 Speedily deleted under criterion G7.. Why on earth the nominator didn't start by consulting me, as the creator of the page, rather than bringing it to a deletion discussion, I can't imagine. This was obviously intended to be a temporary page which I forgot to delete, and of course I deleted it as soon as it was brought to my attention. (Incidentally, "Page protection is a better way of accomplishing the aims of this notice" shows a failure to understand what the purpose of the page was, but that is irrelevant now.) JBW (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this non-standard time-expired edit notice, last edited 2 October 2018. Page protection is a better way of accomplishing the aims of this notice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2020 (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:Archive bottom 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 Redirect Template:RM bottom to Template:Archive bottom. Using this rather than plain redirect because I am not sure that we can simply redirect this. It should be a redirect though, given Pigsonthewing's uncontested point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Archive bottom with Template:RM bottom.
Here I am again... Continuing my oddly specific campaign to redirect templates to {{Archive bottom}}. This one is a bit more popular than the last group, but my reasoning is the exact same. It's a slightly more specific variation of Archive bottom, but they do essentially the same thing. Therefore, we should redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete! See my rationale on original thread. I am a big fan of this campaign, I printed some T-shirts and have some foam hands to wave around during our discussion as well. Unifying these templates makes the experience of being and contributing here much easier for new editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but do not replace, do not delete. Having {{RM top}} paired with {{Archive bottom}} would be confusing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Andy. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:29, 20 February 2020 (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/2020_February_16&oldid=946027258"