Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29

edit

Template:جعبه اطلاعات هنرمند موسیقی

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 T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the title of the infobox seems be an infobox for musical artists of which there is already an existing one which covers it, thus is redundant. Sakura CarteletTalk 20:59, 29 July 2019 (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:Infobox India district

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 2019 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 5 August 2019 (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:1992–93 Serie A table

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 G7 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (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:APR

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 but can be recreated/restored if someone wants to use it Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could see this being used in the future and see no actual reason to delete potentially useful content. --Trialpears (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it was created in 2012, I don't see any reason why it will be used in the future if it hasn't been used yet. one could save the contents in the deletion summary, since it's basically a one-liner. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but I really think this should be a soft delete with refunds since there isn't an actual problem with it --Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (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:North and West London Light Railway navbox

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) 22:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page. While the navbox has more than five blue links, I don't think it would be appropriate to use it on the linked articles because the proposed line has never been approved and was not proposed by a governmental entity. Jc86035 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2019 (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:Gunga Jumna character map

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) 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per this discussion, there should be no character map of remakes tables; instead there can be navboxes listing only the films. Moreover, Gunga Jumna hasn't been remade enough times to warrant a navbox. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2019 (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:The Spill Canvas

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's navigational template consists of one link: the band's article. The band has no notable releases and since it is only used on the band's article, it navigates nowhere and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2019 (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:Sons and Daughters

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's navigational template consists of two links: the band's article and another band that should not be included in the template. Since the band has no notable releases and it is only used in the band's article, it navigates nowhere and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2019 (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:Aramean political parties

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 to Template:Assyrian political parties. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Aramean political parties with Template:Assyrian political parties.
Per the outcomes of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties and Template talk:Assyrian political parties#Requested move 25 May 2019. PPEMES previously nominated this to be merged with {{Assyrian people footer}}, but it's mostly redundant to {{Assyrian political parties}} instead. Merge makes sense here imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2019 (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:Radio Data System

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. kingboyk (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template was designed to be used on radio station articles to indicate that they transmit Radio Data System data as a parallel to {{HD Radio}}. However, RDS transmission is now common on most radio stations. This template isn't quite as useful as the HD Radio one, and there is no citable source to determine stations that do or don't use RDS. Raymie (t • c) 02:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless I'm missing something, the template doesn't place articles into any categories - hidden or unhidden. It adds the text "(RDS available)". If it were to be deleted, it ought imho to be substed. --kingboyk (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It used to categorize, but since the category was deleted following a recent CfD it no longer does leaving exactly the functionality you described (other parameters are never used and quite useless). I would usually agree with you regarding the substitution part but since it's only used in the frequency field of the infobox where it can simply be removed without causing any issues and I see no reason for including this fact I would prefer deleting without substitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC) (with an edit summary of delete) --kingboyk (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (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:Alex Bleeker and the Freaks

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, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This band's navigational template consists of seven links: three band members, two band members who redirect to other bands and two band links that should not be included in the template. There is no article for the band itself, there have no notable releases, the band members articles are already linked, so there are too few articles to justify a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2019 (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:Oncological symptoms and signs

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 2019 August 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (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:Holy Week

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 to Template:Holy Week. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Holy Week with Template:Easter.
Redundancy? Better overview? PPEMES (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merging the last three items of Holy Week to Easter seems sensible indeed. --Trialpears (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a new 'Holy Week' section prominently placed on the Easter template. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2019 (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 Lifetime Achievement Award

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) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template that offers noting more then the main article being placed in every article. As in the main article is simply this giant list with very little value and does not warrent yet another awards template being placed all over. Moxy 🍁 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of every other template, yet there are templates. Look at the Academy Awards for example. They have templates for every single prize category. I am merely giving a little contribution to the Grammys. I won't, however, enter into pointless arguments. Argue among whoever you think you should and whatever you collectively decide I will accept. M. Armando 04:51 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a problem having all these.. many more should be deleted. Simply unrelated names with main articles with little value to the bios they are added to. Spamming the same names over and over and over and over again causing loading problems for some .......just look at Meryl Streep#External links absolutely horrible template spam causing loading problems is the reason they not used/omitted in mobile versions.--Moxy 🍁 04:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC) .--Moxy 🍁 04:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: ...unrelated names with main articles with little value... is false insofar that the relationship is that all the named artists have received the specified award, and if ...the main article is simply this giant list with very little value..., it (not this template/navbox) should be expanded, rewritten and moved as a list or perhaps deleted etc. The quality, nature and destiny of the main article is not the subject of this discussion though. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@M. Armando: ...yet there are templates. Look at the Academy Awards... is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and would indeed be pointless. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to oppose under the current common practice. If an award has an article there is nothing that says it cannot have a navbox placed on the winners articles. This can't be a personal preference deletion, where we delete one but not the other, or allow one award ceremony but not the other. This could probably deserve a bigger disscussion with an end-result of updating guidelines, but it seems people these days are against changing any guideline, so good luck with that. --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: Again ...delete one but not the other, or allow one award ceremony but not the other... is an "other stuff" argument; if this discussion will have any merit, the specific quality and navigational value of the subject template should remain in focus. While you may believe that [t]his could probably deserve a bigger disscussion[sic] with an end-result of updating guidelines..., that possible discussion is not the focus of this discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want me to comment specicially on this then I'll again oppose on the grounds that the template is fine, following project-wide consensus on how award templates works and (after I edited it) followed the visual style as well. I see no reason presented in the argument other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How is that for the specific quality and navigational value? --Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering the nature of the template as an aid to navigation to other musical artists related by their receipt of the same award, the only questions worth asking are "does this template do its job?" (i.e. is it technically sound?) and "should we allow this template to be used anywhere?" (i.e. does it have specific value?) If the answer to both is "yes", deletion should be out of the question, and the use in each article can be discussed as necessary on the respective article's talk page. If the answer is "no" to either, then deletion is back on the table. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are in 18 other templates on that page. I noticed this template because it caused Wikipedia:Template limits problems on 2 pages it was added to. --Moxy 🍁 13:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now There are real problems with these as Moxy has explained but a larger discussion is in order which I probably would support. This is consistency here that I don't want to ruin and there's at least implicit consensus for these templates. --Trialpears (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mmm yes, another of those "ever-growing" types that need to be transformed. It takes a lot of work, but what is needed are several smaller templates, one for say the '60s, '70s and '80s, one for the '90s and so on. Each would have a below= section with links to the others. A new template for the 2020s can soon be made, and like that. This particular template doesn't need to be deleted, just renamed to a specific "era", then new, smaller templates for each of the other eras/decades. Or make a meta template for the below section as in this example. Lots of work, but well worth it to solve the problem stated by the nom. And note that just making it with collapsible sections won't solve the "ever-growing" problem, because the entire template still loads on the page even when only one section is expanded. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:26, 5 August 2019 (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:Uw-oacopyrightblock

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 redirect to Template:Uw-copyrightblock. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-oacopyrightblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same exact template as Template:Uw-copyrightblock. 114.124.245.239 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Warning and block templates are (almost) never transcluded but instead substituted so any usage won't show up in the list of links (Special:WhatLinksHere). Sakura CarteletTalk 22:32, 1 August 2019 (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/2019_July_29&oldid=909517854"