Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8

Template:Familjebok

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) 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created in 2012. Only two transclusions, and requires the full URL as the parameter value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Right, pretty useless as it stands. — JFG talk 15:41, 10 August 2016 (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:CBC Series Dir

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) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-functioning external link template. 55 transclusions. Target site seems to be defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old site was consolidated into a single PDF document, available at http://www.queensu.ca/filmandmedia/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.fmwww/files/files/CBC%20Television%20Linked%20Listings.pdf - the template should be substituted to that link. Dl2000 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (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:Diodorus

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) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Unused, and destination tool is dead. — JFG talk 15:39, 10 August 2016 (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:Bien de Interés Cultural

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 Relist

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Odd external links template with no parameters, and no subject-specific (deep) links, but including links to search pages. Appears to be mostly used in citations, so may need to be replaced with {{Citation needed}} or similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 8 August 2016 (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:DBNAME

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 Relist

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Useful when needing to create multilingual links, although a server side Magic Word would be better. — Dispenser 21:18, 8 August 2016 (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:New Zealand Cricket All-time XI

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) 03:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this template serves much purpose – the "All-Time XI" was the creation of a single website, ESPNcricinfo, and there is no article to link to. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet what is the harm of it being there? If other All-time XI's get templates why should this not? Or are we setting a new precedent for them all? Kiwichris (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question is being asked of this template though. AIRcorn (talk)
`
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:Bivouac

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) 03:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superseded, and marked as deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused and deprecated as stated by nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2016 (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:HD/like

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) 03:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Another help desk template for a deleted tool. Pppery (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2016 (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:Submit an edit request/editintro

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 as unopposed and unused.

WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused editnotice (Template:Edit fully-protected/editintro through Template:edit semi-protected/editintro are used instead). Pppery (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (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:Creation

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 don't merge. ~ Rob13Talk 08:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Creation with Template:HD/new.
Two help desk templates for the same question. Pppery (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{
    HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "
    HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (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:Articledeleted

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 don't merge. ~ Rob13Talk 08:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Articledeleted with Template:HD/del
.
More duplicate help desk templates. Pppery (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{
    HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "
    HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (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:Renaming

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 don't merge ~ Rob13Talk 08:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Renaming with Template:HD/move.
Duplicate help desk templates for the same thing. Pppery (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{
    HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "
    HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (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:Vanish

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 Relist

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:Vanish with Template:HD/vanish
.
No need for two help desk templates about courtesy vanishing. Pppery (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (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:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale

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) 02:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geolinks templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

deprecated for quite some time and only two article-space transclusions remain (I merged about 50 of them with the article infoboxes). Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • note, will need someone to tag the template. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just submitted an edit request to tag it. Pppery (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion of category This is not the proper use of catfd, which is intended for categories populated by templates, not categories containing templates. No opinion on the template itself. Pppery (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've just replaced the only two transclusion in articles, as they were adding necessary text in the infoboxes in which they were used, and I was unaware of this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template was useful about ten years ago, but has been superseded by better ways of doing things and is no longer used, noting the comments of people who have recent finished replacing it in the last few articles. --Scott Davis Talk 03:58, 9 August 2016 (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:16-17 (band)

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) 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough articles to yet warrant a navbox for this band as navigation amongst those listed in not enhanced further by it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
flyer 05:07, 8 August 2016 (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/2016_August_8&oldid=1138533082"