Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 24

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

July 24 edit

BS-table 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 -FASTILY 00:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete; all usage replaces. Only remaining links are to discussion of the templates themselves. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:58, 24 July 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:Uw-castesanction 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant legacy duplicate of Template:Community sanction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – No longer serves any purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Correct, no longer needed. --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 29 July 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).

Paulharv2 creations 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 but one. No consensus on the last. Izno (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for these thing, not every supporting character needs their own navbox, its unhelpful and only spams tons of links at the bottom of articles. I confronted the creator @Paulharv2: several times in the past about adding unneeded navboxes to dozens of articles, they refused to reply and have kept creating more even after I redirected many of them. Most of these characters are supporting characters and end up with templates that are mostly duplicates.★Trekker (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • These templates should be bundled into one TfD imo, rather than 7 (and counting) separate ones. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know how to do that, sorry.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I did it right but I did my best.★Trekker (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's perfect. Thanks :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been posted to WikiProject Comics' Talk page for input. -2pou (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in accordance with WP:TFD#REASONS #2 as redundant per nom. These also contribute to WP:NAVBOX#Disadvantages #4 as they seem pointless. Several are linked on only one page, making their usefulness extremely questionable. Others are buried in collapsed areas with several other Navboxes, making even finding them difficult before attempting to use one. Thank you, *Treker, for your attempts to reduce Navbox clutter!
    It looks like there are some additional suspect navboxes in here, but this is a good start. -2pou (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @2pou: Several of those other navboxes I have redirected, but I wouldn't be against deleteing the redirect either. One or two of them seem to be ok to keep, like the Template:Dick Grayson one. I have also considered an ANI for Paulharv2 since they refuse to communicate and has kept creating after being told not to. There is also the fact that many many many IP edits have been made to his templates which seem to do nothing but revert other peoples removals, which makes me very suspicious.★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:*Treker and User:2pou - there are many other such templates for comics characters, more than a few of which were created by now-banned sockpuppets, which probably also need to be examined for whether they need to exist. My opinion is that we only need such templates for the major superhero teams, and major characters who have been in continual publication, in each case having their own titles for multiple decades. Villains don't need to have a template listing every hero they have ever fought. There are over 160 navboxes each in both Category:Marvel Comics navigational boxes and Category:DC Comics templates. I wouldn't delete them indiscriminately, but each one of those needs to justify it reason for existence, as does each item listed in each navbox. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All (except one): I agree that these should be deleted. Like Norman Osborn and Eddie Brock already share the same info in the Goblin and Symbiote templates. However, I think the Doctor Doom template out of the ones listed, should be kept since he has had major storylines in the comics. The others I’m ok with being deleted. Also, if I may bring one more thing up. I think the Template:Dick Grayson, Template: Red Hood, Template:Apocalypse, and Template:Masters of Evil should be deleted as well. They were all created by him as well. The Dick Grayson and Red Hood templates—like I said with the Goblin and Symbiote templates—share the same info the Robin template. So it is redundant to have them. Apocalypse and Masters of Evil templates for the same reason for the others.Vinny Weasel (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree about Dick Grayson and Red Hood, both those have long histories outside of the Robin name.★Trekker (talk) 00:15, 1 August 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:British English editnotice 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. Izno (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:British English editnotice with Template:Use British English.
To serve a similar purpose as the notice that appears when a living-person bio page is edited (e.g. when the "Use British English" template is added to an article, from then on, the edit notice will be at the top during editing). Not only would it remind editors what spelling and grammar to use and save some time for British-English speakers looking for corrections but separate edit notices wouldn't have to be made by Admins and Template Editors on request that are only used for this purpose (unlike the editnotice made for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone). —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to TPEs/admins, tags were requested on both templates: Template_talk:Use_British_English#Edit_request ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 24 July 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:GRTV 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⚡ 02:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused, completely redlinked -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:17, 24 July 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:Sanjay Gujjar Barseen 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused hard coding of a name which I just added to the article. Didn't seem to fit any of the CSD. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G6. This is not a template, it is a stub article about a real person (a Fatehabad Forest Officer). If moved to the correct namespace, article space, it would be an immediate and clear A7. I have been tagging such templates and categories (typically created by users who are not autoconfirmed as they can't create articles) as G6s, citing the wrong namespace + A7 rationale, this is inline with reason 3 of WP:G6 : "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace.". Reviewing admins have typically accepted this CSD rationale (from User:Eostrix/CSD log, 6 previous ones were accepted). I disagree with @Wugapodes: assertion that this does not fit G6, as G6 explicitly has an incorrect namespace rationale. --Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 04:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "unambiguously created in error" because it was correctly transcluded in a mainspace infobox before I orphaned it. If it was used as a template, then quite clearly it was not created in the wrong namespace. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: you are ignoring the second half the sentence with the or clause: "or in the incorrect namespace". An error is not required - articles who are unambiguously in the wrong namespace, also if their creator did so on purpose, are eligible for G6. This is an article, not a template, and this status is unambiguous - the article creator transcluding it where an article link would be appropriate on reinforces that this is unambiguously in the wrong namespace.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: You cannot claim that a page in the template namespace which was correctly used as a template is actually an article in the wrong namespace. That's just patently absurd. G6 isn't carte blanche to apply A7 to whatever namespace you want. You can wikilawyer about whether or not "unambiguously created..." modifies both "in error" and "in the incorrect namespace" (hint, it does modify both), but if this was uncontroversial maintenance (as is the literal description of G6), we would not be having this argument; I would have deleted it because it would have been uncontroversial. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unimpressed that my tagging of this useless fragment for speedy deletion was undone on the basis that there is a discussion here. Someone needs to read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY; and someone else should apply the snowball principle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 26 July 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_July_24&oldid=970565267"