Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 8

[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 MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:36, 8 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).
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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:35, 8 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).
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) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion but some templates have been missed out. One link doesn't warrant this box and they are all unused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:22, 8 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).
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) 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:13, 8 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).
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) 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of redlinks and unused route map template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 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).
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. as G7. Author agreed deletion in this discussion (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forget how this was meant to help the rest of the template syntax. Agree, delete. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 23:28, 8 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).
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) 06:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only three articles. Can be replaced by {{Infobox settlement}}, which is for "any subdivision below the level of a country"; and into which {{Infobox county}} was merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was started it with the hope that it could be used on all 47 Kenyan counties. I was not able to edit all of them by myself. I agree with the deletion. Unja1234 (talk) 07:22, 9 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).
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 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 16 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).
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 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 16 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).
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. Withdrawn - because there are links to this template. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, it looks like it has never been used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are less than 100 links but no transclusions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:32, 8 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).
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) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singe-use wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. May as well be substituted then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 8 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).
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) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. May as well be substituted then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 8 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).
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) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 8 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).
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) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:27, 8 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).
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) 06:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only two uses; can be replaced by {{Infobox fictional artifact}} (or some other suitable template). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion. I've checked both usages and similar to the pulps template, they too needlessy merge two subjects together causing the infobox to be both about a "fictional artifact" and half about a publication series which is irrelevant. Infobox fictional artifact has all the information that the comic object needs (side note: if {{Infobox comics character}} does not have any publication information, this even less needs it). --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 10 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).
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 to Template:Nerva–Antonine dynasty. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Nerva–Antonine dynasty. As with this TfD, Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty redirects to Nerva–Antonine dynasty and thus does not appear to be an actual thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:04, 8 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).
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 actual navigation. Can be restored if and when a few of the articles are actually created. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with sea of red links. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Those articles are notable and will be created soon. We don't delete navboxes just because notable articles haven't been created yet.--Rapsar (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Since the artist is a notable Turkish singer with music videos that have been watched millions of times on YouTube, one could argue that her songs are notable as well. Just give the creator more time to start working on them; of course if he really intends to create this article. Otherwise there would be no point in keeping it. Keivan.fTalk 01:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no blue links but can recreate this template after the articles is created Hhkohh (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no navigational purpose currently. Unlike what Rapsar says, we do, as it doesn't matter to the reader now whether the articles will be created in the future. Can recreate when there are more blue links. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 16 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).
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 Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to be malformed as it places the article in Category:Stub rather than any subcategory. PamD 14:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a stub template, it should not have been created without going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. PamD 14:22, 8 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).
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 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 16 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).
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:Infobox film. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon with Template:Infobox film.
Hollywood cartoons (and, indeed, cartoons made elsewhere in the world) are a type of film. Merging would introduce some new, relevant parameters to the film infobox, for example |series= and |animator=.

Merging templates such as these reduces the maintenance overhead, and the cognitive load on editors, and provides better continuity of layout and design to our readers, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 8 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).
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. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox pulps character with Template:Infobox character.
No need to have a separate template for just 11 articles. We should also discus whether some of the 'pulp' template's parameters are excessively crufty and thus unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there have been two previous TfDs for this [1] [2] that ended in no consensus after minimal participation, but which also noted that the comic character template would be a better choice.— TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 9 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).
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 to Template:Add-desc-I. Also, ShakespeareFan00, Template:Add-desc-I appears to support multiple files as of 2013. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Add-author-I with Template:add-desc-I.
Merge, (or redirect), given that the merge target effectively says the same thing (about missing details) in less words. The specifics of what this template asks for, are probably best dealt with by explaining it directly to any given contributor rather than this "canned" version. (Aside: It would also be nice if the merged version, could support "multiple-files" or the inclusion of a batch of files as opposed to a single one.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 8 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).
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:Infobox GP2 round report. Consensus to merge, though if anyone wants to start a discussion on merging all the infoboxes into Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report, they can of course do so. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox GP2 Asia round report with Template:Infobox GP2 round report.
Very similar templates; one apparently forked from the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that these and some other inboxes are mostly based on Infobox Grand Prix race report. Probably it will be better to create one Infobox motorsport race report for all of them, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Randonly picked 4 templates and they are all pretty much the same infobox, just a bit different in visual style. Once a style and layout is picked, merging them shouldn't be that hard. Gaining the consensus for that is a different story. --Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should close the nomination and create another? Where we can try to reach consensus for the merging of the similar infoboxes? Corvus tristis (talk) 05:18, 9 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).
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 Defered. There is a more in-depth discussion taking place regarding the future of Geobox as a whole. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11#Template:Geobox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Deprecated, replaced by {{infobox building}}, this page is no longer needed. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Fram and Izno: This template is not transcluded on any pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: please could you revert your edits[7] to Template:Geobox since they cause the template to be unusable. Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that :) Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, Pigsonthewing, BrandonXLF, Gonnym, and Toddy1: I am closing this discussion as it is duplicated by the broader discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11#Template:Geobox. I realize that this discussion was opened first and I want to be clear, there is NO attempt to discard your opinions, that is why I am pinging you. Rather then discussing individual aspects of the template I felt it was more appropriate to discuss {{geobox}} in its entirety. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 11 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).
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 November 21. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:48, 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).
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) Matt14451 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is one template with two associated articles, not one, and that might be considered sufficient to keep. But it is still a little used template and I'm nominating it for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's only used in the two articles in the template itself. Surely a "See Also" section is far more helpful here. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:17, 8 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).
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) Matt14451 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question today is how many blue links (articles) are required for there to be a useful template? I think it should be more than one. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Same rationale as above; if the second link is made, it would still be better served as a "see also" section Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:18, 8 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).
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) 14:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've never nominated a template for deletion. But, from an newbie's point of view, there is only one actual article that is included on this template. The template IS being used on 2 articles but it is a sea of red links and this situation has not changed for 18 months. It doesn't seem to be serving much of a purpose and I don't imagine the 30 red links will become articles in the foreseeable future. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, if these are notable subjects WP:REDLINK comes into play. Navigational templates should have a lot of articles, but you could make an argument that these articles could be made rather than deleting the nav template Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:20, 8 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).