Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1

edit

Template:Date on following weekday

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. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Date on following weekday with Template:Weekday after date.
Newer Date on following weekday is hardly used and has a subset of the functionality of the more frequently used older Weekday after date. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree, no point maintaining a duplicate overlapping function. Dl2000 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (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:Ligonier, Pennsylvania

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 as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text inappropriate as a template (& was being transcluded into an article on Robert_M._Murphy) David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is {{db-t2}} as WP:NOTGENEALOGY and blatant misuse of the template namespace for transcluding prose. For an example of the latter, see {{French Horn in Jazz}}. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not. The act of misrepresenting policy has to be in transcluding the template, not in creating it - otherwise it would obsolesce TFD entirely. You can't speedy delete templates for including genealogy data or for containing prose, only for e.g. expanding into big pink boxes reading "This article is a candidate for speedy deletion because it includes genealogy data" or "This template is a candidate for speedy deletion because it includes prose". Template:French Horn in Jazz isn't comparable; its deleting admin has repeatedly stated that he doesn't manually change the deletion reason if a page is a speedy candidate but not for the reason tagged; that page was a duplicate of French Horn in Jazz and so an A10 created in the wrong namespace.
      I might be inclined to delete this as a A7 or A1, despite its wrong namespace, if not for it giving context by transclusion onto Robert M. Murphy. It wouldn't be an A10, either, since it includes (a very small amount of) information that's not in the article. So delete slowly. —Cryptic 10:44, 3 February 2018 (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:Four Great Classical Novels Television Series

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 2018 February 15. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (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:AK legislatures

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⚡ 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template's creator made a series of recent contributions which smack of WP:INDISCRIMINATE data dumping. In this case, when they created this navbox, they didn't take the time to notice that {{Alaska State Legislatures}} already exists or that the one article they created in conjunction with this navbox followed a different naming convention than the existing dozen or so articles linked by the latter navbox. Considering that, I don't know if this navbox can be speedily deleted or not, and as I have to leave for work soon, I'm not going to have time to figure that out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (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).

NC license 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 relisted on 2018 February 15. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (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).
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⚡ 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template is literally unnecessary, as it's hard-coded into Wikipedia functionality. MOS:PIPE demonstrates this and so I won't bother doing it myself, as to avoid unnecessary explanations (though an example will suffice). Primefac (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree that it should be deleted. I don't think this approach could technically achieve its goals of being able to form plurals in general, including ones that require spelling changes, so it fails on that front. For the case that it does cover, the existing behavior of links with appended suffixes is always going to be simpler to type. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, obfuscates links for no good reason (just add an s after the link). Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2018 (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/2018_February_1&oldid=825796170"