Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

edit

Template:Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career

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) Primefac (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. This also confuses multiple formats of the game into one single statistic. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:22, 2 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).

Template:Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career

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) Primefac (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 2 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).

Template:Cricketers who have won most man-of-the-match awards in ODI cricket

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) Primefac (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 2 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).

Template:Infobox zodiac

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. Continue discussion on the template talk page or nominate {{zodiac date}}, which appears to be the offending template, though I'd suggest first consulting with relevant WikiProjects. Alakzi (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of verifiability policy Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this template states the duration of the various signs (for example, claiming the duration of Capricorn is "22 December – 20 January (2015, UTC)" but does not provide any reliable source for this claim. Editors are constantly coming along and making contradictory claims about the duration of the various signs, again not bothering to quote a reliable source. This leaves editors who wish to remove contradictions from our articles with a difficult task. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: Did you tag the wrong template? This is a navbox which has never provided duration. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's Infobox zodiac, not Zodiac. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep, but I would like more information: can you link me to a page where such a dispute has occurred? It certainly is an issue if it's sparking content disputes, but this feels like an argument for improvement rather than outright deletion. I take it the issue is stemming from the different date spans listed as Zodiac#Table of dates, right? So why not include them all in the template instead, below the current single listing? I don't think WP:V applies, because presumably anywhere the information is included -- Aries (astrology), Pisces (astrology), et al -- should, itself, contain sources to verify the inclusion of those dates, surely? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zodiac#Table of dates suffers from drive-by edits by editors who wouldn't know a citation from rotten fish, but since it has thorough citations, these edits are easy to correct. One of the examples given by Buttons to Push Buttons, "Aries (astrology)" has no pertinent citation. The editor who added the infobox to the article violated the WP:V policy by adding it without providing a citation. In the Scorpio (astrology) article one may find the most recent example of creating a contradiction and reverting it. The problem of lack of a citation remains in that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an issue with the articles, not an inherent fault with the template such that we should consider deleting it. If the information is included and sourced within the text of the article, it doesn't need sourcing in the infobox. So the content issue with Aries, as you pointed out, is a problem, but isn't an issue with regards to inclusion. Considering there are a total of 12 articles to which this can be applied, it would be an hour's work at most to fix the issues, surely? Deleting the template in response to article-space concerns seems like an overreaction. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether it is correct or not, but that it does not cite a reliable source to prove it is correct. It performs calculations to find the date (WP:OR), and it keeps running indefinitely, so proving its correctness requires guessing how long it will be around and trying all the dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just signs, sheesh. It's very easy to find reliable sources, despite it being astrology. You can follow templates like Template:Shuangjiang and reference NASA. I hope it's not WP:SYNTH to say that multiples of 30° apparent longitude are the signs whether astrology is real or not* and that you put the Sun into the ephemeris, any amateur astronomer knows that. *Spoiler: no. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:41, 2 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).

Template:RuneSoft

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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 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).

Template:Atari game lists by platform

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 relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 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).

Template:Blaby Computer Games series

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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 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).

Template:Legazpi TV

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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 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).

Template:Supermarkets in Europe 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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 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).

Template:Smilescite

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. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template was used by User:CheMoBot to tag checked SMILES data in {{Chembox}}. However, today this check is not performed any more. Its code is probably outdated, so no use in saving anyway. (Similar templates that are still in use are listed at {{cascite}}. Their code was recently revised). It is protected, I'lll ask for TfD-tagging on its talkpage. DePiep (talk) 15:07, 2 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).

Template:BannedMeansBanned

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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 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).

Template:Rupesh Paul

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 Relist at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 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).

Template:2010 ITF Women's Circuit

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) BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template doesn't exist, and until it does a "place holder" does not need to be there in its place. Note that there are two TFD tags on the page, but one is from {{coming navbox}} which is also being nominated. Primefac (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The fact {{coming navbox}}, the only "content" here (and which seems an inherently problematic idea), is within noinclude tags means that absolutely nothing is being transcluded. Until such time as someone is willing to create this template properly it shouldn't exist solely to turn a red link blue, especially when its transcluded presence on any page is undetectable without editing the page. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:32, 2 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).

Template:Coming navbox

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) BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that haven't been created don't need a notice saying they haven't been created. This template encourages bad practice. Primefac (talk) 04:19, 2 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_2&oldid=1138533361"