Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29

edit

Template:Episcopal lineage

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) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was deprecated in favor of Template:Ordination almost as soon as it was created, and there were questions from the start as to what it even meant. It's certainly irrelevant to Anglicans, where there is never a single consecrating bishop. It has only seen usage in a couple of high-profile articles of various prelates. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the content being merged? It does qualify at least on a "show/hide" basis. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the template and having heard several argue against it, I agree that it would be prudent to do away with the template. However, it has been partially merged already into Template:Ordination, and I think the template should be deleted in accordance with merger policies rather than plain deletion. Ergo Sum 19:34, 1 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:Southern Cross Broadcasting

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⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, defunct Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 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:Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women

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 for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable squad, all red links, and (if anyone wants to see it) the squad is already saved in the 2009 and the 2011 articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 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:Russian Ground Forces

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⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally redundant to navigation found in Template:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 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:Running bot

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⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 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:Infobox basketball official

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 merge to Template:Infobox basketball biography , or rather limited merge as indicated in the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox basketball official into Template:Infobox basketball biography.

The 'official' template only has 17 transclusions. Most of its parameters are in the 'biography' template and of those that are not, most are generic and apply equally to players (e.g. |parents=). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 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:Infobox robbery incident

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) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had only two transclusions, each now replaced with {{Infobox event}}, which offers extra parameters (example), so unused and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 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:Infobox alternative medicine

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 30 transclusions, which should variously be replaced by {{Infobox medical condition}}, {{Infobox medical intervention}}, or {{Infobox medical speciality}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 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:Infobox alternative intervention

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 Snow not merged (non-admin closure) Pppery 14:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox alternative intervention into Template:Infobox medical intervention.
We don't need a separate infobox (with only 20 transclusions) for "alternative" interventions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — There is a very good reason to keep these separate. By definition much of what exists in Infobox intervention cannot apply to alternative medicine, and the other way round. Alternative medicine per definition does not have many of the codes listed in the intervention infobox, while medical interventions do not divide into schools or other alternative medicine groupings. Carl Fredrik talk 19:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template serves the articles very well, and adding those 5 parameters to the intervention template is to invite confusion. And to add the others to this one is to invite vandalism and to allow for misuse to promote ineffective therapies. legality= is used, see for example Colloidal silver. Carl Fredrik talk 20:23, 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:Infobox StarCraft character

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 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 7 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:Google books

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 Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Pppery 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly any need for this template, editors should be encouraged to use reftag.appspot.com which works a treat. --Nevé–selbert 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's argument makes little sense for a template that is used in 6,000 pages. Maybe the nominator could explain better. What would you do with all of the transclusions? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we deprecate this template and encourage users to use the external link above.--Nevé–selbert 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that said external link leads to a third-party application with no guarantee of being maintained, not to mention it is hosted on Google Cloud Platform, right? How does this actually help anybody —Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be very useful for so many users.AlfaRocket (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for delete — We overuse google books in a way that unduly favours a for-profit company. However, the amount of work needed to get rid of this template is just too much. Carl Fredrik talk 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very useful.Gazal world (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use this template all the time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On articles like Phenakistiscope the reference books are unlikely to be in your local library. Which means Google books and similar online repositories are needed. The choices that I know of are 1) put a long URL into a cite template (and hoping that Google never changes their URL format like most other online companies seem to do) or 2) use the Google books template. The Google books template has a simpler syntax than the URL. And if Google change their URL format then we make the corresponding changes in the template and thus rescue thousands of references. I don't see how reftag.appspot.com is an improvement over this.  Stepho  talk  23:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this very useful template which as various people point out above future-proofs links to Google Books in case of a change in format. Directing us to a third-party application hosted by the very same organisation against which the nomination is directed might be somewhat ironic in the circumstances. Might I also point out that the addition of the (admittedly standard) notice is producing some ridiculously ugly and broken results when this template is in use inside {{cite book}}, using |plainurl= as per the rubric, which if intended borders upon being WP:POINTy to my mind… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting it would be chaotic unless there is a bot that can replace all the usages. Although simply using the url of the google book works just as well.e.g.
  • Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra, eds. (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-26772-9.

Incidentally the app has some problems - for instance it does not distinguish between editors and authors - see below

--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Request withdrawn. I was hasty in nominating this template and for that I apologise.--Nevé–selbert 20:50, 30 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:Annualsportingevents

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⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 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:Sydney Botany Bay suburbs

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) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City of Botany Bay and its suburbs are now part of Bayside Council. a new template for its suburbs has already been created. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the new template? Was it a cut-and-paste creation from {{Sydney Botany Bay suburbs}}? If so, there should then be a merge rather than a deletion. Useddenim (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sydney Bayside suburbs}} LibStar (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:54, 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:2017–18 in Danish football

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No parent article, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as not all the links are red, but trim all redlinks so that we have a usable navbox. I am generally concerned about the condition of these types of year in country football navboxes, however. --woodensuperman 14:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just trimmed all the redlinks. --woodensuperman 14:29, 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:N-VR

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 substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Subst and delete This wrapper template provides no advantage over transcluding the text directly from the Non-visa travel restrictions article directly (where it's previous content was moved) Pppery 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I LST-ified this template and left it as a template in case it was decided that the page Non-visa travel restrictions should be moved to another title, which would necessitate updating the hatnote on all 200 country-specific articles. If people are happy enough with the current situation then I'm fine with subst-ing and deleting this one. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:59, 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:Passp-restr

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⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template; should be merged with the article (and then deleted, since it contains no copyrightable content; only calls to other templates). Pppery 16:34, 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:Passp-valid

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 article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the use on the now-unsused and soon to be deleted template {{passp-restr}}, this is a single-use template that should be merged with the article. Pppery 18:46, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_29&oldid=1146489214"