Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1

Template:Ontario Tertiary and 7000 Highways

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 October 8. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 8 October 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:Show file signature

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.

 ■ 21:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Single use templates like this one are generally discouraged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know about policy, but converting hexadecimal byte representations to the UTF-8 encoding of the ISO 8859-1 characters for those bytes is quite tedious and there's no assurance it's correct when done manually. It was because I noticed that at least one of the conversions was wrong that I created the module and template. That seemed a better solution than painstakingly copying characters from a code page, as using {{convert}} is better than using a calculator. But yes, there's only one page that this template and module is used on, and I didn't convert all the rows in the table to use it. — Eru·tuon 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:21, 2 October 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:SLMPD Police Commissioner

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template of redlinks is of little value as a navigational tool to the users of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, a link to
    Police Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis should be sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:01, 1 October 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:2TeamBracket-MMA

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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

unused Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 1 October 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
).

ECHL coaches navigational boxes

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.

 ■ 21:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The

talk) 11:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:54, 1 October 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:2018 Asian Games men's kabaddi game B1

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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template - relevant information is at Kabaddi at the 2018 Asian Games – Men. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:42, 1 October 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:2018 Asian Games women's handball game QF1

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 All deleted— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unused with no information whatsoever. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more - more to come in a couple of minutes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all Due to match format changed, these template are no longer used. Asian Games is over. All abandoned but forget to delete these Hhkohh (talk) 02:14, 2 October 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:2018 Asian Games women's kabaddi game A3

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template - relevant information has already been placed at Kabaddi at the 2018 Asian Games – Women. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkbwcgs: Ya I think it is okay to delete this template, but not all of the templates similar to it, as the ones involving India has been used at the page India at the 2018 Asian Games and likewise others may also have been used.--Anbans 585 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 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:UFC FX prelim header

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 1 October 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:ZG sanctions

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. I think this template can safely be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement have been revoked so this template is now obsolete. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:49, 1 October 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:Sam Levinson

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only two entries. Not enough to warrant a navbox.

WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 09:36, 1 October 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:2018 European Athletics Championships Schedule

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. Consensus is to substitute and delete these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per previous Izno (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge with articles and delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retaining the information is relevant. It is not obsolete. Bad precedent cited. We should retain the information. Trackinfo (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • no one is saying the information should be deleted. the proposal is the merge the information with the article since there is no need to keep the information in a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This commenter has been corrected in his opinion that the information is being destroyed at the Sep 21 and Sep 20 discussions. Closer should consider those also. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not speak for me. I have not changed my opinion. You might be honorable, but in the wrong hands (and there are a lot of malicious deletionists out there) subst is a potentially flawed system because there is no tracking of the history of a destroyed template. You have not answered that argument, so I am not convinced this action needs to be taken and worse yet a precedent established. Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not speak for you nor did I suggest that your opinion was changed. I only corrected your statement that the information will be deleted or lost somehow. I see no reason to track the history of the template in any meaningful sense that won't also be done in the article's page going forward. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the three sections below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 October 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:2015 World Championships in Athletics Schedule

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. Consensus to merge these templates into the respective articles and then delete. I have endeavoured to provide some basic attribution of the main author of each template. If Pelmeen10 wishes to enact their suggestion, then please discuss at my talk page; I will not stand in the way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the two sections below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 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:2014 IAAF World Indoor Championships Schedule

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. consensus to merge and delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst then delete Per nom. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 22:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current sources will disappear. We have the information, formatted. It is getting to be serial stupid to delete these, wholesale apparently. Trackinfo (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:Subst. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not changing my !vote, I explain here. Trackinfo (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:Subst.– BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not referring to either of the two of you in this. I don't recall dealing with you. I have a great deal of distrust for the follow through on these discussions. In these deletion discussions over a decade, I have met some of the most disingenuous, low life scum of wikipedia editors. Among other trickery, they have wangled many a merge compromise to achieve a consensus, then used the basic editing capabilities to make content slowly disappear. The only back up is article history. But when the original article is destroyed, that history is destroyed with it. Granted this kind of deceit occurs in more controversial content, but the sequence of the events is the same. So say the person doing the subst work screws up, accidentally or with malice. After this template is destroyed, after the original sources go dry as they will, what is our path back to the original? Trust. But no verification. And you know, years down the road, some people come along, referring to this layout information, to write further details about these events; putting things into context and significance. People like me. Trackinfo (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article and delete, no need for a single-use template. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the sections directly above and below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. To Trackinfo I say that if the article ever gets deleted, I'm sure that those interested in using this data elsewhere on Wikipedia will be given a copy of the source of the article or this template by a kind admin or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I'm confident that the same option will be available if the subst work is botched. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However that is entirely dependent on an administrator noticing the problem, because the general public cannot see the data, and that is the point. Wikipedia survives because anybody can check anybody else's work and can fix it. This removes that from the equation. Trackinfo (talk) 14:26, 8 October 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:2016 Olympic Athletics Schedule

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. content has been merged into articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Should be substed and deleted per previous. Izno (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Schedule information remains relevant. Sources frequently disappear (Olympics not as much as lesser championships), but why make people go digging obscure, payback sources to find information we already have and present in an orderly fashion. A bad idea to delete. This NOM is wholesale nominating a bunch of these templates, making me go chasing to try to hold off the damage. Others have already been destroyed setting a bad, ill informed precedent that needs to be reversed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This commenter has been corrected in his opinion that the information is being destroyed at the Sep 21 and Sep 20 discussions. Closer should consider those also. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inzo, Stop putting words into my mouth. You did not address the issue. You have not solved it. Above, our only hope offered is to find a cooperative administrator. That assumes that we would have to first, detect a problem, then go on a search for administrative help. While these templates do affect content I regularly edit and refer to, I am far more concerned about the precedent we are trying to set. This is an unnecessary deletion. We have working templates already in place with a public edit history. Historically, we copy, paste and edit the format of these templates as each new championship returns. The reason there are so many similar looking templates is because they have been built upon one another over years. We are seeking to destroy that history in the name of clean up. And this precedent can be used, in the wrong hands, to "clean up" or mask elimination a lot of much more controversial content. I seriously object to using any of this discussion as a precedent to serve as a path to further content removal. Prove the NEED for this to be eliminated. Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with articles and delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the three sections above this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 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:Yanson Group of Bus Companies

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. Compare the relevant AFDs

 ■ 20:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles in navigation template fails

WP:ORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly to see what happens with the AFDs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 3 links (1 of which seams off topic) – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:54, 4 October 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_October_1&oldid=863131834"