Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 30 July 2 >

July 1

edit

Template:2013–14 UEFA Europa League Group A

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) 22:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates content in 2013–14_UEFA_Europa_League_group_stage#Groups. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 1 July 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:2012 USA Rugby Men's College 7s National Championship Pool A

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) 22:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merged with 2012 USA Rugby Men's College 7s National Championship. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 1 July 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:2011 Pacific Games men's football tournament – Group A

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) 23:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and basically empty. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 1 July 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 4th SS PD

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 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:21, 19 July 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:Flag-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 move. to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be used anymore. Not touched since 2009, and {{flag-article}} has been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 1 July 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:Largest cities of Japan

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. The rationale from the keep !voters sound more solid. Also, a bit quasi-procedural since the time when the sock was blocked, there was no delete vote! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

navigates nothing and redundantized by as list of cities in Japan already exists68.151.25.115 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then read Wikipedia:Navigation_template#Navigation_templates_are_not_arbitrarily_decorative. the article at urban area is bloated with pictures and tables where links should suffice. note also that "city" does not always mean "urban area". city templates like these dont belong on that page because 'metropolitan area' does not always mean 'city' and does not always mean 'urban area'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.25.115 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That a template contains images does not make it arbitrarily decorative. The primary purpose of the template is to list the largest cities in a concise, not necessarily to provide navigation per se. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the template isnt a infobox nor a map or a timeline but a simple truncation of the list. its adds no additional functionality to the articles its on and "templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function" (WP:TG). the style of the template is like a navbox because it adds no unique information that isnt covered elsewhere. and it cant be part of a series since theres no universal definition of city.68.151.25.115 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the purpose of the template is to list the cities and to avoid duplicating the same content across multiple articles. That is an entirely appropriate use. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the template is inherently flawed and a misnomer. special wards of Tokyo is not a city but an administrative division. the argument that this fits a series of templates is equally flawed for the same reason. there isnt a set definition of a city; in this case and in australia's case, different institutions will define a city with different criteria and different definitions. we have another (notable) article Cities designated by government ordinance of Japan which excludes tokyo from the list. (here are a few others: Special cities of Japan, Core cities of Japan.) in List of metropolitan areas in Japan by population, defintions used are authored by the Statistics Bureau of Japan (SBJ) and the Center for Spatial Information Service of the University of Tokyo. this template is unmaintainable and should be left to appropriate articles/lists. another issue: is the city largest by population or area? different government definitions will define cities in different ways. for these reasons, regardless whether or not the template is used and rendering that argument moot, this template should be removed from both articles.68.151.25.115 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - its an objective way to connect important cities of Japan without saying important cities of Japan (which would be rather subjective). In other worlds, it connects cities which you should know if you are interested in Japan, and therefore, it provide navigation between related articles Christian75 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only the top 20 cities should be highly known?68.151.25.115 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is 195(*) countries in the world. That gives you 3900 cities you have to learn about... (*) or more Christian75 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and how does that have anything to do with this template? should we list all the towns and cities in japan? Cities_of_Japan#City_status states "The least populous city, Utashinai, Hokkaido, has a population of six thousand, while a town in the same prefecture, Otofuke, Hokkaido, has nearly forty thousand.". in japans case, a top 20 is subjective not only because of the number but because of administrative and political definitions.68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made my point. If the template(s) should contain 15 or 20 or 25 cities - I do not care. It can be discussed afterwards. Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
so then is this just a wp:useful argument? we dont make templates for everything per wp:cln.68.151.25.115 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 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:Pronunciation inline

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) Winged Blades Godric 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates such as {{Audio}} and {{Pronunciation}} serve the same function with better implementation. It is also problematic in that the usage cannot be traced back from the audio file's description page on Commons (see Ahmedabad.ogg for example, a file linked from the template's documentation). This is because since it uses an image instead of a text, it has to link directly to the file URL instead of MediaWiki's standard way. Nardog (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 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 Gas Centrifuge

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) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the links except for two are external to Wikipedia, so the template serves no purpose as a navbox. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 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:Audio-pipe

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 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:25, 19 July 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:Gaurav Narayanan

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. Template is now used, and links templates. I see NPASR if there is a new/valid deletion rationale. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I know what is the reason behind the article to get delete ? Srivin (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srivin: Because it is unused, and it does not contain enough links since the director has only made 3 films. These boxes should have at least 5. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine I'll create another only after he does more, but you are right, I created because I felt he deserves. Srivin (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 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:Grammy Award hosts

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) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERFNAV Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 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:17 tank brigade (Ukraine)

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 all except Template:Ukrainian armed forces.. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand why these templates were created, they violate WP:MOSICON (i.e. they are little more than an icon and a link). The "unit" templates are all unused, as I have replaced them with simple wikilinks, but I figured I'd garner consensus for deleting the rest of them before proceeding with the orphaning. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:MOSICON Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I am really opposing the deletion partially due to the fact that MOSICON policy does allow use of icons and I do not clearly understand your side note "they are little more than an icon and a link". At the same time, I did not see similar icons on Wikipedia and do not really understand the icon's practical use as it does kind of fall under "cool look" criterion. For voting purposes on the subject, I abstained. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with said exception, given that there are other similar overarching-group templates. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 12 July 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:NPA1

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) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no clear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 1 July 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:NRHP dab cleanup

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 move to project space. It seems agreed that this template should be deprecated and moved out of template space. Since this template directly relates to a past task of an ongoing WikiProject, the best move destination seems to be a subpage of the WikiProject. I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP dab cleanup without leaving a redirect. @Doncram: Let me know if you have a different preferred title for this template in either project space or user space. Deryck C. 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it can be marked as "historical" or similar. It's of historical interest, it was used on many of the more than 3,000 NRHP disambiguation pages (most categorized into Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles). The development and use of the template helped ease controversy about the disambiguation pages which ran for years. (If this TFD drifts towards "Delete", however, I request that the template be moved to my userspace instead of outright deletion.) I haven't looked yet, but I believe it was mentioned/linked from a number of disambiguation discussions and probably admin noticeboard discussions. Deletion undermines understandability of those discussions. --doncram 05:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 1 July 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:Ncdr

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually the case with a template that should be substituted. Multichill (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 1 July 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:Notability editnotice

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and misspelled warning. We have much nicer templates to say this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 1 July 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:Black Power movement

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 move to Timeline of the Black Power movement and reformat as list/timeline article as suggested Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enormous template, not helpful in navigation and unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 1 July 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:1939 shipwrecks

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 July 12. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 12 July 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:Tom Ford

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) 23:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, would violate WP:NENAN even if used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 1 July 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:J. K. Amalou

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) 17:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 1 July 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:NBA referees

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) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING: "Unlinked text should be avoided." The majority of entries is unlinked text. —Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 1 July 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_July_1&oldid=1241946851"