Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Template:Fdw editintro[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 (no opposition), though if this really is being used as an editnotice (or similar) then this discussion should be re-opened. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used. A simple text explanation type entry that would belong on a help page or in a guideline, not in template format. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment how does one determine if it isn't used? I assume this is an WP:Editnotice, or a WP:Preload, which is called by MediaWiki software settings, and is not transcluded. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2015 (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:Geologic Ages Inline[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 into {{Period start}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Geologic Ages Inline with Template:Period start.
Redundant to a better designed template. The name makes the purpose unclear, whereas {{Period start}} tells you exactly what you're going to get. It is also paired with {{Period end}}, so you can provide the time span of a geological time unit without needing to look up the next unit. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think merging is fine. Alhtough I think that "period start" does not return the age-measurement-error yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this TFD notice was added, it broke a few others, so this template is in use by Template:Geological_range. So much care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An important feature of {{Geologic Ages Inline}} is that it makes clear what its source is and you can use {{Geologic Ages Inline|reference}} to insert the source. If the templates are going to be merged, this feature should not be lost. Note that the ages are revised frequently. Petr Matas 09:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2015 (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:Manchester Metrolink Proposed Extensions (Phase 3a)[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. These Manchester Metrolink lines are now operational and topic is covered by other templates in Category:Manchester Metrolink navigational boxes. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2015 (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:Manchester Ashton Metrolink[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 07:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template superseded by Template:Manchester Ashton Metrolink line. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (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:Manchester Airport Metrolink[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 07:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template superseded by Template:Manchester Airport Metrolink line. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (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:DIIV[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 08:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As navigation between all the principle articles in this template are linkable to and from each without a navigation box, this doesn't provide any additional aid intended by such boxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, does not provide enough navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; navbox does not seem warranted at this time.  Gongshow   talk 19:38, 17 December 2015 (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:Monthly maintenance category[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 relist to Dec 25. Primefac (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template is unclear. The template has no transclusions, and is a wrapper of Template:Monthly clean-up category. Also, this template was created in 2010 with possibly some sort of plans to create a separate distinction from "clean-up" categories, possibly with a separate category. Is there discussion somewhere in the past 5 years stating there are plans for this template? In lieu of this information, I say delete as redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is supposed to be for use on categories like this. It appears that the separation between the two classes was muddied over the years. Only a little work is needed to make the template function properly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This is the template meant for maintenance categories, of which by far not all are clean-up categories. If anything, the other template should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then maybe the category and the other template should be renamed to "maintenance" titles instead of "clean-up" titles. Either way, there is unnecessary redundancy, not to mention that renaming these templates and categories could disrupt the function of some bots that maintain these categories unless they are made aware of the changes beforehand. The way it stands, the nominated template has no transclusions, showing its current usefulness. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why clean-up was split from the general maintenance templates, but this is the central template. As I said, if anything, it is the other template that should have been nominated. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: Deleting the other template would cause a lot of disruption on Wikipedia since that template is utilized by several bots. The only solution I see (if the title of the other template is that much of a concern) is to delete this template then move the other template here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2015 (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:Jack Cooper (musician, composer, arranger)[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 relist to Dec 25. Primefac (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has way too many links. It looks like this template is listing everything that is connected to this musician. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be done for the template to function properly or be acceptable? Shelyric (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thing to do is to remove every album/recording in the list that doesn't have a proper Wikipedia article. There should be no external links in a navbox, and there should be no items without a link period. Navboxes are intended to navigate to existing articles, not present someone's complete discography. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've drastically reduced it, removing duplicate links, unlinked text, external links. I think it's serviceable now, but I think some of the links are probably still spurious. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, it was drastically reduced and the name appears on those music related pages. But, there were several links taken away that actually were working properly to wiki pages (about 4 or 5) Shelyric (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2015 (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:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Use mdy dates[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 relist to Dec 25. Primefac (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not needed anymore, due to Fram's changes to the dmy, mdy, and English variants categories. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These categories should have the {{Monthly maintenance category}} template in them which utilizes these and allows the distinction between clean-up and maintenance categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No reason why these categorie sshould have the "monthly maintenance category" template, which puts these cats back in the cleanup categories anyway (and that template is up for deletion as being unused). One can see the diff between a cat which uses the "monthly maintenance cat" template[1] and one which uses a specific template (in this case for "Use English" variations, but the same applies to the mdy cats)[2]. There doesn't seem to be any distinction between the "maintenance" and "cleanup" template in reality, apart from an extremely minimal change in the text (not in the categories): {{#ifeq:{{{clean-up|}}}|no|maintain them|work through the backlog}}. Removing the mdy, dmy and use English variant cats from the clean-up cats made this a bit less populated, removing these messages from the cleanup template will make it a bit lighter and easier to check as well. Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2015 (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:Parras de la Fuente TV[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no local TV stations in Parras de la Fuente and there are no transclusions of this template. Raymie (t • c) 07:07, 9 December 2015 (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:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template namespace page has been blanked, the corresponding edit summary read "remove for now per WP:BRD". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any advantage in deleting because a blank notice is treated the same as a deleted notice by the editnotice system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Well, the software probably skips a few steps, including fetching the edit notice, if there's no edit notice, if that's significant. Alakzi (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the content of the other namespace editnotices useful?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: Yeah, might as well let them all remain in the event they are to be utilized in the future. And leaving a blank edit notice does the software no harm. Also, it may not be clear for an inexperienced editor or administrator how to add a edit notice to one of these namespaces in the future if the page is deleted; leaving it in existence cuts through most confusion caused by the lack of the page's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2015 (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:American Consolidated Media[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2015 (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 Bridge[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template that has been deprecated due to the fact that all the subordinate articles have since been merged into the main article. Safiel (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Template is orphaned. Safiel (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's only one article, then this is useless for navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2015 (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:Convert/2[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 relist to Dec 25. Primefac (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are outdated since 2013. This set of ({...Convert/n}) does not add any serious help beyond current {{Convert}} options. Also, their /documentation is hard to follow, if at all.

See also the TfD re Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_23#Template:Convert.2Ftext2 Template:Convert/text2 -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if these are needed to make sure that old convert works properly (And as we are not deleting parserfunction CONVERT, the subtemplates needed to make it work properly should be kept) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I will make a strong suggestion that all the parserfunction CONVERT templates be moved to templates.wikia.com and something like GitHub to preserve the coding for use by the wider MediaWiki community in the world at large, such as like what happens when we use GitHub to register our open source projects, the parserfunction codings are open source code for MediaWiki, and the CONVERT set is useful for those who do not deploy LUA, as well as good complex code examples. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, these are not used by {{convert/old}}. these are forks of {{convert}} which were created for 'free form' multi-value conversion. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do you advise? [4] -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frietjes is right, they are not used by {{convert/old}}. I'm not quite sure, though, why this would be an issue. The old version is no longer needed anyway. Jimp 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if these templates are used by {{Convert/old}} (a claim that is hard to check btw), they could stay for reason IP mentioned (keep parserforms complete for background reasons). However, they should be deprecated still (not to be used in mainspace). -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: they do not follow WP:MOSNUM re × punctuation & unit symbols:
{{convert/2|20|x|30|ft|m}} → {{convert/2|20|x|30|ft|m}}
  • Delete As with the other forks, these are difficult to use and only deal with very unusual cases. Creating ad hoc solutions to obscure problems is not very helpful (and very unhelpful if they ignore MOSNUM). Jimp 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep these ad hoc forks. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2015 (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/2015_December_9&oldid=1138533713"