Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25

edit

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation

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 relisted on 2017 September 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (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 institute

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 relisted on 2017 September 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (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:Atlas Shrugged

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) 05:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the links in this navbox are also in the {{Ayn Rand}} navbox, which is also present at the bottom of all the linked articles. Therefore this template is redundant. RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reasoning? I see no reason to keep it. It's all covered in the Ayn Rand template. What's the point? Michipedian (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (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:Callimachus

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 , but no problem with restoring it if more articles are written. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. woodensuperman (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Each of the works of Callimachus listed in the template are deserving of their own article, perhaps the existence of the template will inspire the creation of the missing articles. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, until more articles are written. navigation boxes are for navigating between existing articles, redlinks in lists in articles are for inspiring the creation of the missing articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:14, 25 August 2017 (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).

Redundant Doctor Who Episode head/body

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) 05:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous uses of these templates have been replaced with the standard Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list templates and therefore are no longer required. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed, unnecessary. -- AlexTW 00:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Dresken orphaned these templates without first obtaining consensus, and even after objections were raised (see User talk:Dresken#Episode Tables), they continued. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all large edits need consensus; I see nothing wrong with the edits to implement the more widely-used template, and there's no need for two different templates that can do the same thing. Dresken also stated that they would fix any problems it caused, such as the in-links. -- AlexTW 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Redrose64, I suggested a solution for the concern you raised, as I never recieved a response I could only presume you had no further objections. I feel I waited a reasonable amount of time for your response before implementing the solution and then continuing. Please note that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a valid method of obtaining consensus. However I cannot see the sense in keeping templates around unused, so is there actually a reason you would want these templates used again or restored when the standard episode templates displays the same information and fulfils the same functionality? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is difficult for me to respond in "a reasonable amount of time" when I spend ten or more hours away from home each day. Sometimes it takes two or even three days to work through a watchlist backlog. I note that you continued your conversions a couple of days later - but still persisted with WP:LDR in articles that had never used that technique. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. The issues with LDR are irrelevant to this forum and can be continued to be discussed elsewhere. Usually it is preferable to move the template through the TFD process prior to deprecation, but if nothing was lost (and it appears nothing was, according to the discussion Dresken's talk page), I see no reason to harp on bureaucracy. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2017 (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:Prussian Royal Family

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 to delete, so keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure fantasy, these titles don't exist. Wikipedia is a place to be factual not a place to play at kings and queens. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with either a delete (due to lack of navigation provided by the sidebar) or a trimming down to the sole links per the tenants of WP:NAVBOX. Sidebars and navboxes exist to navigate, not simply to list items of interest. --Izno (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I realize that this template refers to the formerly-reigning family of a former state, but it is still very useful for readers to be able to see this type of list of family members. Also, this template is consistent with the format used in similar templates of other European royal families, including formerly-reigning ones. Moreover, the German government officially recognizes Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia: for example, the website of the President of Germany shows the President (at that time) with Georg Friedrich here, and the caption states Abendessen zu Ehren von Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen aus Anlass des 300. Jahrestages des Geburtstages von Friedrich II., which translates as "Dinner in honour of Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the birthday of Frederick II". Since the highest office of the German government officially recognizes him (and even held a dinner in his honour), surely that is a good additional reason for this template to be retained. -- Blairall (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard template independent om immediate national context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2017 (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:Uw-longterm4im

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should meet WP:DENY because it's dependent on nonexistent page Template:uw-longterm page was deleted a year ago 209.249.5.130 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what has changed since the discussion in April? Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:05, 25 August 2017 (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:NCAA Season 91 men's volleyball elims results

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 merging with the articles Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template, should be merged with the article. no need for a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this is a mass-nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or replacement with an appropriate template is fine for me, since I would guess there are some standardized results templates lying around. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (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:The Loop 1895-1897

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. It looks like these were added to History of the Loop (CTA) while the discussion was in progress. Feel free to renominate if you still wish to see them deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:03, 25 August 2017 (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/2017_August_25&oldid=1073609954"