Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 22

October 22

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "External link template" in WP:GOLF which is no longer used. With changes to external websites Template:PGATour player is now used instead. See: Template talk:CanadianTour player for notice. Nigej (talk) 19:10, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused, duplicates big brother series templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:12, 22 October 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).
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 objections, and prior consensus concerning this type of navigational box Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERFNAV, this template should be deleted because it is a "performer by performance" template. anemoneprojectors 12:47, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 12:40, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 12:38, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 12:33, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other navigation. Frietjes (talk) 12:32, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and blanked. Frietjes (talk) 12:29, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation provided by Template:Carnivora. Frietjes (talk) 12:23, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 12:21, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 12:16, 22 October 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).
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 move to userspace for development Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. we have had some success with importing 'selectable image' technology from the French WP (see Module:Location map). but this one is not working for whatever reason (probably some missing javascript). if someone can make this work, we should definitely consider keeping it. even better would be to have this as a feature with the gallery tag. but, alas, it is currently broken. Frietjes (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: It's here. Thanks, Rehman 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks similar enough in functionality to the switcher gadget that I already set up based on their code that I could probably just modify it to do the same thing, instead of needing an entirely new template for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jackmcbarn, I was thinking the same thing. perhaps eventually add this functionality to {{multiple image}}? A radio button image selector would probably be enough for a start, rather than the whole autoplay stuff. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 26 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and no clear purpose. Frietjes (talk) 11:56, 22 October 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).
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) 22:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki Formula One project does not have templates for Grand Prix races by country. This template has been added to, and subsequently removed from, multiple articles. Eagleash (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination is pretty weak, and amounts to not much more than WP:IDL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. How about examining its function as a navbox and the general usfulness of the template on that basis? Also, WP:F1 is not almighty in having a say in what does and doesn't exist in this encyclopedia. I agree that the creator was, per usual, clumsy and unsubtle in their design of this template and its blanket spraying at articles that may have some link to the subject, but just because two editors decided to remove it from every instance with only minimal thought doesn't mean that it is an inherently bad idea for some articles. Could you put a bit more effort into your rationale and then maybe this could be a discussion. Pyrope 01:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: I have tweaked the template contents and format somewhat, to focus the template on the disparate and otherwise poorly linked events that at some point went by the name. Do others feel that these adjustments make this template more useful? Pyrope 05:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sometimes something new has to be tried and tested. To me, this template seems useful, but only because this specific race is not bound by just one country. The Banner talk 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 22 October 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).
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, vandalism reverted (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcoded stack of amboxen. Should be substed. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KATMAKROFAN, I reverted the vandalism. do you still want it deleted? it should definitely not be substituted. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 22 October 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the artist, the album and the song in this template already sufficiently link to and from one another without the need of this navigation box. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:39, 22 October 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).
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/deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this as a template for it is only used on one page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:34, 22 October 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).