Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb si header3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb si player3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

feature to show "previous club" now merged with {{fb si header}} and {{fb si player}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb si header AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb si player AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb si footer AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the header template is redundant to {{fb si header|eu=n}}, the player template is completely redundant to {{fb si player}} with the eu parameter removed, and the footer template is redundant to {{fb si footer}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was replace and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Digimon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one mainspace page, for which the uses of this template could be completely removed. Izno (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No?  What did you expect to see, Delete the dreary template nominated for deletion by reverting vandalism, leaving a bright useful template in its place?  That would be giving too much credit to the vandal for having created something worth deleting.  Or maybe this would work, Procedural closure as the template nominated for deletion no longer exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What he expects to see is a well-justified reason for keeping the template on a conceptual level, not "I reverted vandalism and now the template is perfect and pretty". What is the reason for having a separate template for just Digimon characters? What can be done here that is not duplicated at {{Infobox VG character}}? I reject the reasoning that this template includes all the digivolutions and related minutia because that is trivia which shouldn't bloat a template in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's now used on two pages as I just got through reverting a merger that claimed to have consensus but did not. The consensus on Palmon, after going through AfD, was Keep, and it had never been put through again. Furthermore, there are no comments on the talk page since the 2012 nomination for a merge, a nomination I must add specifically says you have to explain your reasons on the talk page. Seeing as no arguments were made for such a merge, I had to undo it. — trlkly 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox (VG) character should still serve for any possible articles, though I doubt there are many. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually understand the keeps here. The first is simply bizarre, and the second seems to confuse this with an AfD for the transcluded articles. Even if we have an article on a fictional character, it need not have its own custom and wholly in-universe/gameguide infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The vandalism took someone knowledgeable, 3100 characters were removed from a 4000-byte template without destroying it, and it is also not a trivial thing to know how to use six hex digits to set a new background color.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Time 100 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer aids navigation. It currently consists of only links to redirects (with removed edit histories due to copyvio) and 2 very short stubs which can easily be linked to in the main article or merged. It is unlikely that these articles will be recreated due to Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deleted template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be used as a method of Wikipedia:Soft deletion, a failed proposal. The last time it was used was to undelete Template:Expand, and subsequently "soft" delete it. I don't think it's necessary to preserve templates for the sole reason of making old article revisions look good (i.e. without broken templates) and the community seems to agree (cf. failed proposal). This template no longer serves a purpose and is not currently used. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blank template, Purpose? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To disable the default namespace editnotice. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive_129#Edit-page_header. —Kusma (t·c) 12:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can of course be deleted if the general disabling of Wikipedia talk namespace editnotices (via the blanking of Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk) sticks. —Kusma (t·c) 06:39, 22 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untagged (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At present un-used, Also felt to be redundant to {{di-no-license}} to which this could be redirected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Don't know (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposed for deletion, as it appears to be currently unused, In addition it is felt that it would be better to ensure that an image has an admissible licence BEFORE it's uploaded, rather than allowing it to be uploaded without one. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for some context— As I recall, this was provided as a "trap" option in the upload wizard. The idea was that some "unpermissable" options were provided so that users without proper copyright/licensing/etc. wouldn't just pick a valid license at random which then prevented us from actually _finding_ the problem files. If you tell people "don't upload" and their goal is to upload, then they'll pick whatever lets them upload even if its dishonest. This has been well supported by actual user behavior both here and on commons. But apparently this solution is too subtle because passing wikimedians constantly break it. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I'll be bold and redirect this instead :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WTFPL-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, Images under free licenses should be uploaded to commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan T20 Cup Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pakistan Twenty20 League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Pakistan T20 Cup Winners with Template:Pakistan Twenty20 League.
Directly related and small templates. SocietyBox (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 18 June 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.