Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 13

November 13

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 after adding the information into the article itself. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless navbox. The only use is on the theatre's own page, where it could be a list if the content were to be retained. But the concept that a local theatre's production of some play was nominated for some local award is not appropriate (undue and not-defining) on the play's own pages, which is where else this navbox could conceivably be used. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Template:Ensemble Members of Porchlight Theatre Ensemble (Porchlight Music Theatre). --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pls. do see also that other TFD. The other template is a reasonable navigation template, as each of its items is the name of person who may be notable and deserve an article. This one, created by the same new editor Danceandsingandact, doesn't work to navigate between intended articles, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a list of the awards received by the organization, and it looks like it should be directly included as a list within the organization's article. If that editing were done, and the new editor was advised, then I would agree this template can go. However I oppose simply deleting a new editor's contributed template without providing some education and effecting some learning. This with intent to avoid discouraging them and driving them away from Wikipedia, which happens too often.
Like I said at the other TFD: Also, I don't mean to be sarcastic or rude, honestly, but don't people have better things to do than to go around hurting new editors? I find myself asking this question and making essentially this comment, repeatedly. There is no policy violation in nominating these templates for deletion, but it is "morally" wrong in my view, and I hope other editors concerned about editor retention will agree. You can choose not to take actions that are likely to turn off new editors, I suggest.
sincerely, --doncram 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into list Both the theater and the award meet WP:N, so the information is worth to be kept, although not as an orphan template. PanchoS (talk)
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 relist to Nov 23Primefac (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unused subtemplate of convert. (note, there is already a userspace version at User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/text2) Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep by author. The Template:Convert/text2 is in use, but has been removed from many pages without consensus; {Convert/text2} was created over 2 years ago (October 2013), to solve the strong user complaint of too many conversions intermingled within article text, so it combines the 2 conversions at the end of the text to reduce the disruption within the free-form text. {Convert/text2} functions as a wp:wrapper template for {convert} and allows quick insertion of free-form text as multiple phrases, beyond the limits of {convert} as designed for ranges of numbers but not free-form text between numbers as in {convert/text2}. Over the past 2 years, the original doc-page was deleted/renamed without consensus, and so it was recreated to begin rewriting the help-text about the various parameters. Removal, hacking and deletion of long-term templates and their documentation, over years, is a massive disruption causing many years of endless suffering, to thwart long-term progress by experienced template editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2015 (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 relist to Nov 23Primefac (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an exceedingly unusual and highly specific reason to need to delete a page. The same logic could apply to CC-BY-NC type licenses as well; no need for a GFDL-specific speedy deletion template nowadays. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (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 relist to Nov 23Primefac (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (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 relist to Nov 23Primefac (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused article maintenance tag. I can't tell what it is supposed to be for. More established tags like {{copy edit}} and {{tone}} are in wide use. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2015 (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:uw-vandalism4im. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to proliferate the "4im" series this far. The {{vandalism4im}} warning should suffice in extreme cases of inserting deliberate misinformation (such as changing Barack Obama's gender in many articles, or something of that type). — This, that and the other (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just replace it with a redirect to {{vandalism4im}}? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (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 no consensus. Withdrawn by nom but multiple delete votes still exist. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seeing as the article was just merged with Borders Railway, it is no longer needed. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad and unclear scope. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 20#Template:Keelboats worldwide. Smartskaft (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (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 relist at Nov 23Primefac (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (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, redundant to other navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template links to just one article, though many different sections of it. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:47, 13 November 2015 (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).