Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

Template:Fb si header3

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.

Template:Fb si header AU

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.

Template:Infobox Digimon

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]

delete after replacing with {{Infobox VG character}} or {{Infobox character}} or just remove it complete and merge the "level" information with the prose. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per Frietjes. No compelling reason for this series-specific template. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reverted vandalism to this template by a SPA. It has sprung to life like flowers in the desert that appear after a rain. The dreary and almost unreadable background is now the intended orange, and the places that the template is being used now are displaying what had been hidden info. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not really a keep argument? --Izno (talk) 13:48, 19 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.

Template:Time 100

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]

As the creator, I do not contest this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, looks like you're the only major contributor. You might be able to speedy G7 this, if you like. Otherwise, a nice healthy discussion about this template never hurt anyone. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and replace with see also links. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 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.

Template:Deleted template

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]

Keep Seems to be unrelated to [Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)|[Wikipedia:Soft deletion]]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rich Farmbrough referenced Soft Deletion by name when undeleting Template:Expand. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a shit whether or not this is deleted, but I think it's hilarious that we're discussing the deletion of a template that informs people that a template has been deleted. Right, now back to being useful. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's presently used or not, we do have a consensus that occasionally old templates are kept around so as not to break old revisions. It doesn't really make sense to delete this boilerplate only to have to recreate it later. It should be formatted like {{tdeprecated}} though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So there's my question: where was this consensus established? I saw that Soft Deletion was failed but I don't see anywhere that we've decided to preserve the "prettiness" of old revisions. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been established in the numerous cases where we've kept legacy templates which have been replaced with parserfunctions, for instance. "Soft deletion" is a red herring here: that was some inclusionist gambit for articlespace. Just to make it clear, I am generally opposed to keeping templates around just for the sake of old revisions, but I do believe that the exceptions we already have should be flagged somehow, and this is the most appropriate way to do it IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, that sounds acceptable. In that case, I'd like to see this template get more use at the appropriate locations. Who should I talk to to get the ball rolling on that? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 21 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.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

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]

Comment: in my opinion a blank edit notice is better than a deleted edit notice, because non-admins can see the history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 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.

Template:Untagged

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]

Keep: In use by User:ImageTaggingBot, to handle situations where the bot thinks the image might have license information but knows the image doesn't have a license tag (eg. a filled-out "permissions = " field in an {{Information}} template). --Carnildo (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Carnildo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 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.

Template:Don't know

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.

Template:WTFPL-1

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]

Keep: Just because images should be uploaded to Commons doesn't mean they are uploaded to Commons. Keeping this license tag will permit people who upload here to provide the correct license information for those images. --Carnildo (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not need to provide license boilerplate for every deeply obscure free license around. Deleting this should hopefully ensure that no editor licenses new documents using this. Those extremely rare cases where an existing file under this license is uploaded do not need a boilerplate license template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thumperward is persuasive. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 23 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.

Template:Pakistan T20 Cup Winners

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]

merge seems sensible. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 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.