Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 18

November 18

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, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norio Osada has only ever directed one single film. There is no need for a template. Not even a category would be necessary. Nicholas0 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 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).
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) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 7#Template:Contains_Chinese_text . Timmyshin (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, Timmyshin. One would expect that these figures are somewhat lower as of 2017, but not dramatically so. Unfortunately the reports have been discontinued since. In any case, the question is: how small a percentage of users is enough to justify this accessibility feature. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite dramatically so: a more up to date browser breakdown is here, and gives Windows XP a 1.3% share, of which an unknown number already have CJK fonts installed. The dramatic drop probably has something to do with Mediawikil limiting support for older browsers; older versions of IE still work but have Javascript disabled for a much worse experience - see mw: Compatibility.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 
Screenshot of Korean Wikipedia Main Page (in Chrome 34.0 and Simplified Chinese version of Windows 10 Enterprise 2015 LTSB, without Korean Supplemental Fonts)
  • Comment: By default, only one Korean font (Malgun Gothic) is included in non-Korean version of Windows 10, other Korean fonts which were included in previous versions of Windows (Batang & BatangChe, Gungsuh & GungsuhChe, Gulim & GulimChe and Dotum & DotumChe) are no longer included. So if you use a old-version of some third-party web browser (which was released earlier than Windows 10), Korean characters may display as square boxes instead. See instructions in Microsoft Support Center and the picture above.--Dabao qian (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suprising Chrome 34 fails so badly, but then it’s a version created before Windows 10 came out, so they could not test it against it. I reiterate what I wrote below though, it would be very odd to download and install a three year old version of Chrome and run it on Windows 10. Not only for the compatibility problems but for all the security holes discovered in the last three years that have been patched in newer versions. Even if you tried Chrome’s aggressive auto-update might upgrade it before you had much chance to use it. So few people are using such an old version - only 0.19% according to the stats – and I would think almost all of them are using older OS versions, constrained from upgrading any apps that no longer support their version of the OS.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:08, 22 November 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).
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) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 7#Template:Contains_Chinese_text . Timmyshin (talk) 16:39, 18 November 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).
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 or keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suitable topic for a navigation template. The only thing they have in common is a network timeslot, so this fails most of the points at WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, there is a parent article and the scope is now limited since the programming block is now defunct. there was cross-promotion between the shows in the same block "with the goal of encouraging young viewers to watch the entire lineup, instead of just a particular show". Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 18 November 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).
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, but there doesn't seem to be any objection to merging the content with the articles Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fortunately, these templates are not being used Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 18 November 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).
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 November 26. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 26 November 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).
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 November 26. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 26 November 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).
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) 22:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 01:04, 18 November 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).