Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28

edit

Template:Shipley

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. Izkala (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; no blue links. ~ RobTalk 21:34, 28 April 2016 (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:Scottish civil parish

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) 15:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, created in 2006. Not sure what this was meant to be. ~ RobTalk 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lookup table of codes to parish names and populations. Owain (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2016 (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:HabPlanetScore

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 No consensus. The template was previously nominated here and got no consensus. It looks like one editor has been pushing this template for deletion, and has gotten mixed results. This discussion has been idle for about 3 weeks now, with no further comments in sight. Reintroduction of transclusions should continue in a discussion on the template's talk page. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since last nomination, it has been removed from all pages on Wikipedia and it does not appear to me likely to be used again. jps (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Removed by whom and as a result of what discussion? ~ RobTalk 15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list that was using it was removed by others. Not by me. jps (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admins, please consider I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a ban on submitting AfDs as they appear to be abusing this process for some time. Multiple consecutive AfDs submitted around the topics of ESI and the PHA website due to a failure to understand the purpose of AfD, and a failure to wait for consensus on a strongly-felt topic before taking action.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is simply untrue. jps (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gliese 667 Cc was not merged. You removed the template from that article as well. K2-3d is another example, Kepler-438b, Kepler-22b etc etc. All had the template removed by you. As for the AfD ban I have to agree with Tom.Reding, you keep renominating the same articles if they have a no consensus close simply to get a different outcome. You also demonstrated on my talk page that you don't understand the current definition of an AfD. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't be having this problem if you hadn't used your sockpuppets to votestack the conversations. If anyone should be banned from this particular discussion, it's you. jps (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vote stacking currently going on and I do not have active sock puppets if we want to point fingers using the past is not a smart solution here. An RfC is a far more effective way to generate consensus about the use of ESI on Articles templates etc. splitting the conversation into several AfDs, and TfDs is not an effective way to build strong consensus. I've only suggested that a ban on nominating AfD's should be considered, I've never said you should be banned from the conversation. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I mean the reasons keep adding up. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you like the transclusions to be restored to? Which article? jps (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All transclusions, and all edits made that removed information related to PHA & HEC information should be undone, pending a conclusive outcome of WT:AST#Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB?.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most recently, see histories of Wolf 1061c & Kepler-452b.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FOR THIS TEMPLATE point to 'WHICH ARTICLE. It is a specific request. jps (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already restored them to List of potentially habitable exoplanets following your removal and edit-warring here. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template was not used on that page. Please try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking some comments here since I mistook another template for this one. ~ RobTalk 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was used in this article, until I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc removed it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does a removal that was done before the last TfD have to do with this situation? You are muddying the waters and generally behaving like a tendentious editor. jps (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this template was not that "Page Specific", It was prevosly used in many Exoplanet articles such as Gliese 667 Cc, Kepler-452b, Kepler-442b, Kepler-438b and probably even more articles used this template in the past. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:28, 28 April 2016 (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:UnicodeTitle

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. Izkala (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused. Non-functional now that {{Unicode}} has been deleted. ~ RobTalk 12:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a candidate for G8? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Eh, not really. It could easily be made to work without {{Unicode}}. It would take 30 seconds or so. If someone wanted to IAR WP:G6 it as uncontroversial maintenance, I wouldn't object. ~ RobTalk 17:47, 28 April 2016 (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/2016_April_28&oldid=1144368960"