Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 21
< October 20 | October 22 > |
---|
October 21
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
unused after replacement with {{Fb rbr pos header}} with |nr=30
. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Fbc start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Fbc cl1 pos header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc cl1 t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc cl1 t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused after replacement in 2011 China League One. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Fbc 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc nh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused in article space after rewrite of Template:Fb rbr t pos China and replacement in Shandong Luneng Taishan F.C.. Frietjes (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Fbc 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fbc 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused after rewrite of Template:Fb rbr t pos China. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
redundant to {{Fiba player}} with |df=y
(see here), no harm in keeping a redirect after replacement since it would still render correctly, just with month first, instead of day first in the birth date. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was merge history Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Child page of removed main page. Cky2250 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- history merge with Template:Video game multiple platforms reviews/doc. Frietjes (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Only four links one of which is already at afd. Not everything needs a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete, the navigation is already handled by the infobox previous/next links. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:T6 Sydney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:T7 Sydney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
not needed since {{Sydney Trains platform box}} generates the icon automatically (see here and here). Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Previously two transclusions on White House travel office controversy and White House FBI files controversy, now replaced by Template:Infobox event. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This single-use infobox should be deleted and replaced with an instance of Template:Infobox military person. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Template is single use as it incorporates special colors, images and formatting in the caption and fields, etc. which can easily be messed up by an inexperienced editor as it conceals and keeps a lot of mark up off the page. Unless there is a particular policy violation or the template is causing some sort of problem for someone I see no reason for its deletion. -- Gwillhickers 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why not just use Template:Infobox military person?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Because of reasons I just mentioned above. No one has actually pointed at any real problems here. -- Gwillhickers 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per nom? What exactly are you objecting to? Just wondering why some people spend their time chasing after things that aren't violating policy or causing anyone problems.-- Gwillhickers 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete after replacing with template:Infobox military person (i.e., substitute and delete after removing the
<div>...</div>
tags). no one has indicated why this person is so special that he needs a specially colored infobox. we should strive for consistency across articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The grey background was added to better display the white flag (right) which is difficult to distinguish with a white background. I know of no WP:policy that says only biographies of very famous people are allowed to employ color in the the info box. While we always strive for a certain level of consistency in WP articles we must realize there is no 'one-size-suits-all' approach, there are examples everywhere and trying to police all the articles in such a fashion is peckish and often leads to resentment among fellow editors when someone with nothing better to do with their time pushes an issue over something where there are no WP policy violations and no one is being offended or otherwise given a problem. In any case, as the author of the template I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion so I can get back and spend my valuable time writing and building nice articles for the readers, our number one priority, btw. -- Gwillhickers 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- fixed the flag for you, which is why {{flagicon image}} adds the border by default. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tfd nominations for templates like this one are routine, I didn't expect such a strong reaction. Consistency between templates of the same kind is also important, and for military infoboxes there is a consensus that the general appearance should conform to Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style and WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The "reaction" is over the idea that for every one writer there are ten others on a 'mission to clean up' and often hound editors, for issues (aside from fixing typos, spelling, redundant links, etc) that involve no WP policy violations and which are not causing problems for other editors. I have seen too many writers, historians, people making valuable contributions, leave wikipedia because they are confronted over matters that should not even be an issue in the first place. I try to convey this message every opportunity I get in the hopes that people will think a little bit before they try to create an issue with someone. Before I ever bother a fellow editor I ask myself: Is there a policy violation? Is WP being abused? Is someone using WP to make a statement? Is any editor being offended or inconvenienced? If the answer is 'no' to all of these questions I move on. As I said, I nominated the template for speedy deletion, per author requests. -- Frietjes, thanks for presenting the 'border' feature for images. In all my years of editing that item has managed to elude me! -- Gwillhickers 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have a similar habit: before I create a new template (of which there are already tens of thousands), I spend a little time to find out if there is already one that can do the job. Sorry if the TfD notice has bothered you, but the best way to not receive them is to avoid creating redundant templates.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- No sweat I guess. I simply used the existing template and concealed it within another. Anyway, I didn't see anything in Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style that had anything to say about the use of color, but if it's going to create issues to the point where someone is insisting I'll remove them also. -- Gwillhickers 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have a similar habit: before I create a new template (of which there are already tens of thousands), I spend a little time to find out if there is already one that can do the job. Sorry if the TfD notice has bothered you, but the best way to not receive them is to avoid creating redundant templates.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The "reaction" is over the idea that for every one writer there are ten others on a 'mission to clean up' and often hound editors, for issues (aside from fixing typos, spelling, redundant links, etc) that involve no WP policy violations and which are not causing problems for other editors. I have seen too many writers, historians, people making valuable contributions, leave wikipedia because they are confronted over matters that should not even be an issue in the first place. I try to convey this message every opportunity I get in the hopes that people will think a little bit before they try to create an issue with someone. Before I ever bother a fellow editor I ask myself: Is there a policy violation? Is WP being abused? Is someone using WP to make a statement? Is any editor being offended or inconvenienced? If the answer is 'no' to all of these questions I move on. As I said, I nominated the template for speedy deletion, per author requests. -- Frietjes, thanks for presenting the 'border' feature for images. In all my years of editing that item has managed to elude me! -- Gwillhickers 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tfd nominations for templates like this one are routine, I didn't expect such a strong reaction. Consistency between templates of the same kind is also important, and for military infoboxes there is a consensus that the general appearance should conform to Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style and WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- fixed the flag for you, which is why {{flagicon image}} adds the border by default. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The grey background was added to better display the white flag (right) which is difficult to distinguish with a white background. I know of no WP:policy that says only biographies of very famous people are allowed to employ color in the the info box. While we always strive for a certain level of consistency in WP articles we must realize there is no 'one-size-suits-all' approach, there are examples everywhere and trying to police all the articles in such a fashion is peckish and often leads to resentment among fellow editors when someone with nothing better to do with their time pushes an issue over something where there are no WP policy violations and no one is being offended or otherwise given a problem. In any case, as the author of the template I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion so I can get back and spend my valuable time writing and building nice articles for the readers, our number one priority, btw. -- Gwillhickers 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Infobox park. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Duplicative. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete, it was only being used in the articles linked from Template:Parks in Irvine before I replaced it. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Pappas TV Stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pappas TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Pappas TV Stations with Template:Pappas TV.
Can be easily covered in one template. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- * Merge per nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- * Merge per nominator....William 12:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge is reasonable and cheap. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per outcome of this recent TfD. DH85868993 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per outcome of this recent TfD. Note: this template does not need to be merged or subst'ed - the relevant season summary article (2011 Formula One season) already contains the information. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per previous nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per previous TFD....William 14:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This template can just be deleted - the relevant season summary article (2011 Formula One season) already contains the content. (The info was extracted into the template, but another editor reverted that change, so the template is now just not necessary at all). DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.