Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8

Template:Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci

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) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NAVBOX#Disadvantages, this is a template that takes up "too much space for information that is only tangentially related". The consensus is in favor of director navigation templates since directors are commonly recognized as key figures in making films. However, beyond directors, the involvement of other crew members will vary. In this case, we have this screenwriting pair that has shared writing credits with others on a variety of films, so the degree of their contributions will vary. In addition, their television-related credits make it unclear their role, and a review shows their roles to be as executive producers or co-executive producers, which are hardly lauded positions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Director/producer/writers navboxes on media articles should be reserved for the "primary author" of the work. They work well for someone like Quentin Tarantino where readers may wish to navigate to his other films, but not for people where there isn't a strong association between them and the work. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2014 (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:Lunar coords and quad cat

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. If you want to have an option for emitting a tracking category added to {{coord}}, then you should probably make a request at Template talk:Coord. However, since he {{coord}} template was never tagged, and there is a general lack of discussion, I am going to close this as "no consensus". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Lunar coords and quad cat with Template:Coord.
The Lunar template was split from Coord, which it transcludes, in order to apply categories, This functionality can be included in {{Coord}}, or one of its sub-templates modules. (I TfDd it, but that was closed with no consensus, and a suggestion that TfM should be used instead) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment instead of keeping the loading at {{coords}}, I think that non-terrestrial coordinates should be separated out into a separate template set. One advantage is that someone cannot accidentally choose a non-Earth link for coords, and a non-terrestrial template can require a world be set, so will not accidentally link to an Earthly coordinate. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment why has {{coord}} not been tagged? Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2014 (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:Head of State of the Philippines

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) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Head of State of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates of the following templates:

Template:Historic Filipino monarchs
Template:Unofficial Philippine Presidents
Template:American Governors-General of the Philippines
Template:Philippine Presidents
Template:Japanese Governors of the Philippines
Template:Spanish Governors-General of the Philippines — JL 09 ^talk_contribs 06:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It duplicates other info and is arguably inaccurate -- Governor Generals head of state when there was no sovereign state and when they served at the pleasure of the Spanish and American heads of state? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (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:ArbCom discretionary 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbCom discretionary sanctions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Ds/talk notice which provides greater functionality as required by WP:AC/DS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (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) 04:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, I think a redirect to Template:Ds/talk notice would probably be the best idea as it's still a reasonable search term. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (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:ArbCom ruling notice

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) 03:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbCom ruling notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Greater information will be provided by a notice which mentions and refers to the sanctions, generally Template:Ds/talk notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (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) 04:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (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:Starbox 2

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) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starbox 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Starbox series of templates is standard for binary stars. Out of 410 pages in the binary stars category, 356 use Starbox, while only 13 use Starbox 2. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsequential, as far as you have stated. Rarity of usage is not the question; applicability is. Ask instead if the Starbox template can be used to duplicate or improve the presentation Starbox 2 gives for those 13 articles, or if Starbox 2 can give a superior presentation for the 356. Make a case for that one way or another and there will be something useful to consider. Evensteven (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates are used for the same class of articles, and Starbox is by far the most common of the two. If Starbox 2 hasn't been widely adopted in the six years since its creation, it's unlikely that it provides any significant improvement for covering binary stars compared to the other template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

indifferent to which is merged into or replaced by which, but we definitely don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2014 (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) 04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to suggest that we use the unified template method present in {{starbox 2}} far more often these days and that we should be migrating existing star articles to it, whether there's some trivial semantic difference in what they actually cover or present at not. However, I'd like to know why we need either when {{infobox star}}) exists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (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:Unbanned

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) 03:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this back in 2010, but numerous other users have edited it. I still like the idea, but it simply has not been used. It is currently transcluded on a grand total of one user page. Templates are supposed to be useful, and it seems this one is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted this was discussed before @2010 August 19 and kept. (I am neutral in regards to this fresh proposal for deletion). –xeno^talk 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry, but how can you gauge use on current usage? The idea is that it temporarily removes the badge of shame, i.e. {{banned}}, and replaces it with something more akin to their circumstances. It is then replaced by something else at the unbanned user's discretion. I notice the rationale provided to blanking my userpage rather than using the template: "blank sock tag (couldn't find suitable version to revert to)", which probably means that the reason behind its non-use is due to a lack of visibility/knowledge.--Laun chba ller 21:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked in on it from time to time, and it has never really been used as intended. This implies the community doesn't really need it. It won't really upset me if it is kept, I just see this this as clearing out some unused clutter. thanks to Xeno for pointing out the previous discussion, which I probably should have done. At the time I argued to keep it and give it a chance. It was kept, it had a chance, and in four years it has barely been used. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment - how many times in the last five years has a banned user been unbanned? I would guess the number of instances to be very low, so it stands to reason this template wouldn't be used much. However, do extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary templates? Is there a documented process for unbanning a user? How would someone know this template is available? My inclination is to keep as potentially useful, as there is no redundancy, and while it might not be useful today or tomorrow, it may be useful in the future. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The process for unbanning is not set and depends how the ban came to be placed. For community-imposed bans there must be a consensus to lift the ban or, very! very rarely, a finding by WP:BASC that the ban was improper. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen. ArbCom just unbanned a user a few weeks ago. This template was not used. I think I've seen it used maybe three or four times in as many years, if that. (Noting also that I did change the one transclusion of it to a substitution since the user had not removed and therefore presumably wanted it to remain) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Beeblebrox. The template hasn't been frequently used. I've also been skeptical about the idea of templating unbanned users (although I, myself, have done that once). My point is that it should only be up to the unbanned user to put up a notice on their user page if they want to. Hey mid (contribs) 14:39, 2 May 2014 (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) 04:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above, I don't really see a need to template a banned user. Any message to them will need to include more detail than this template, which is really only for announcing to users that the user is no allowed to edit. If any unbanned users want something like this, I image they'd create their own message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, agree that we don't need this. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2014 (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.

London bus company navboxes

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) 03:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London bus operators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bus companies in Greater London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:London bus operators with Template:Bus companies in Greater London.
These duplicate one another — lfdder 17:49, 13 April 2014 (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) 04:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (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:Forestry and gardening tools

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/merge/split Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forestry and gardening tools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Forestry tools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Garden tools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose splitting and merging Template:Forestry and gardening tools into Template:Forestry tools and Template:Garden tools.
This newer navigation box overlaps with and partially duplicates two other, already-established navigation boxes. I suggest that Template:Forestry and gardening tools be split and merged into the other two. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2014 (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) 03:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

go for it Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2014 (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:WikiProject status/Active

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) 03:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject status/Active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject status (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject status/Active with Template:WikiProject status.
The base page name template now seems to do by default what the /Active subpage version has been doing, which may simply need to be redirected to the former. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:32, 28 April 2014 (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, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare templates – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2014 (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.