Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2

Template:Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career

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) 06:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bowlers who have taken 500 or more wickets in international cricket career (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. This also confuses multiple formats of the game into one single statistic. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom, also the rough consensus at WT:CRIC. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What they said. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 3 November 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:Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career

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) 06:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cricketers who have achieved the treble of 10000 runs, 100 wickets and 100 catches in ODI Career (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "treble" is just a combination of 3 random things, and as such it's just listcruft with no encyclopedic vaue. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom, also the rough consensus at WT:CRIC. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful thing to have as navigation template. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And here's a link I've not seen on Wikipedia in a long time: WP:listcruft. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 3 November 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:Cricketers who have won most man-of-the-match awards in ODI cricket

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) 06:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cricketers who have won most man-of-the-match awards in ODI cricket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary navigational template that causes bloat to articles. This is a non-standard statistic and provides no value to the reader. Articles are linked through other standard templates including runs scored, wickets taken etc which are standard statistical points. A discussion of this and other templates is at WT:CRIC —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MOTM is not the best way of using statistics, things like runs/wickets are. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom, also the rough consensus at WT:CRIC. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom but also nominate Template:Batsmen with an ODI batting average above 50 GreenCricket (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful thing to have as navigation template. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the Nomination Matt294069 is coming 02:47, 9 November 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:Infobox zodiac

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. Continue discussion on the template talk page or nominate {{zodiac date}}, which appears to be the offending template, though I'd suggest first consulting with relevant WikiProjects. Alakzi (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Violation of verifiability policy Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this template states the duration of the various signs (for example, claiming the duration of Capricorn is "22 December – 20 January (2015, UTC)" but does not provide any reliable source for this claim. Editors are constantly coming along and making contradictory claims about the duration of the various signs, again not bothering to quote a reliable source. This leaves editors who wish to remove contradictions from our articles with a difficult task. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: Did you tag the wrong template? This is a navbox which has never provided duration. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's Infobox zodiac, not Zodiac. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep, but I would like more information: can you link me to a page where such a dispute has occurred? It certainly is an issue if it's sparking content disputes, but this feels like an argument for improvement rather than outright deletion. I take it the issue is stemming from the different date spans listed as Zodiac#Table of dates, right? So why not include them all in the template instead, below the current single listing? I don't think WP:V applies, because presumably anywhere the information is included -- Aries (astrology), Pisces (astrology), et al -- should, itself, contain sources to verify the inclusion of those dates, surely? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac#Table of dates suffers from drive-by edits by editors who wouldn't know a citation from rotten fish, but since it has thorough citations, these edits are easy to correct. One of the examples given by Buttons to Push Buttons, "Aries (astrology)" has no pertinent citation. The editor who added the infobox to the article violated the WP:V policy by adding it without providing a citation. In the Scorpio (astrology) article one may find the most recent example of creating a contradiction and reverting it. The problem of lack of a citation remains in that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's an issue with the articles, not an inherent fault with the template such that we should consider deleting it. If the information is included and sourced within the text of the article, it doesn't need sourcing in the infobox. So the content issue with Aries, as you pointed out, is a problem, but isn't an issue with regards to inclusion. Considering there are a total of 12 articles to which this can be applied, it would be an hour's work at most to fix the issues, surely? Deleting the template in response to article-space concerns seems like an overreaction. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I don't see a problem with keeping this template. If it is not working correctly, it should be updated, not deleted. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether it is correct or not, but that it does not cite a reliable source to prove it is correct. It performs calculations to find the date (WP:OR), and it keeps running indefinitely, so proving its correctness requires guessing how long it will be around and trying all the dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just signs, sheesh. It's very easy to find reliable sources, despite it being astrology. You can follow templates like Template:Shuangjiang and reference NASA. I hope it's not WP:SYNTH to say that multiples of 30° apparent longitude are the signs whether astrology is real or not* and that you put the Sun into the ephemeris, any amateur astronomer knows that. *Spoiler: no. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not WP:FIXIT by removing the in-built dates and making an input? I will note that the problem is not with the infobox per se, it is with the called template {{zodiac date}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the problem isn't with this template, it is with the called template. This is easily fixed by blanking the row and replacing with an input parameter. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 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:RuneSoft

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 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:Atari game lists by platform

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atari game lists by platform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my reasons why: the template isn't used much, not even on the links provided by the template. Better yet, there's {{Video game lists by platform}}, which lists every list of video game release per platform, making a line by one company redundant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this broad? It list all the game list articles for each Atari game system. Being way too broad is Template:Video game lists by platform. Why is that being used in these articles, instead of the one that just list the relevant information? Why have that massive list of unrelated things, instead of focusing only on those in the Atari family? Dream Focus 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, @Dream Focus:, I was in a bit of rush with nominating it, I've expanded on my rationale. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per substantial duplication with Template:Video game lists by platform. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 4 November 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:Blaby Computer Games series

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blaby Computer Games series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Narrow breadth covered fine in the prose and in See also sections as needed. czar 18:21, 2 November 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:Legazpi TV

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legazpi TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 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:Supermarkets in Europe templates

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supermarkets in Europe templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 November 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:Smilescite

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. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The template was used by User:CheMoBot to tag checked SMILES data in {{Chembox}}. However, today this check is not performed any more. Its code is probably outdated, so no use in saving anyway. (Similar templates that are still in use are listed at {{cascite}}. Their code was recently revised). It is protected, I'lll ask for TfD-tagging on its talkpage. DePiep (talk) 15:07, 2 November 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:BannedMeansBanned

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussions here and here. BethNaught (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{sockpuppeteer}} and/or {{banned user}}. Standalone it's just a completely pointless piece of crap. --189.25.195.239 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{banned user}} or a similar template so the post-merge template includes the text "any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted" or a similar phrase. Okay with Keep (if kept, consider changing the color scheme from red to grey). Not okay with "delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted". Side-note: I agree with the nominator that the red color and having two templates that both say "banned" on the user's talk page gives the appearance of harassment. The fix is to change the layout and presentation of the messages to both the banned editor ("you are banned") and to the community ("he is banned, his edits may be reverted"), not the meaning of those messages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Template:Banned user/testcases for an example of how we can keep the existing template but make it look less intimidating to the banned editor. Note - ideally, the "big red box" that is now {{BannedMeansBanned}} would be neutral grey and it might not even be a box - it might just be text intended to be transcluded into other templates such as {{Banned user}}. I think "Banned user" is the only template that transcludes this one but it's hard to be sure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information I have asked that Template:BannedMeansBanned/sandbox's create-protection be removed. Once it is removed, we can play around with variations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. NE Ent 01:12, 10 November 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:Rupesh Paul

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 at Nov 10. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rupesh Paul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, connects 5 articles, and seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 9 November 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:2010 ITF Women's Circuit

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) BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 ITF Women's Circuit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template doesn't exist, and until it does a "place holder" does not need to be there in its place. Note that there are two TFD tags on the page, but one is from {{coming navbox}} which is also being nominated. Primefac (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact {{coming navbox}}, the only "content" here (and which seems an inherently problematic idea), is within noinclude tags means that absolutely nothing is being transcluded. Until such time as someone is willing to create this template properly it shouldn't exist solely to turn a red link blue, especially when its transcluded presence on any page is undetectable without editing the page. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:32, 2 November 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:Coming navbox

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) BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coming navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates that haven't been created don't need a notice saying they haven't been created. This template encourages bad practice. Primefac (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unhelpful, and is only used to create pages for the sake of creating pages. Since it should not itself be included in any transclusions, it encourages the creation of transcluded templates which are undetectable without editing the page. The appearance of a navbox's existence may, in fact, dissuade an editor from creating it, as they may not click through from a category, say, to check. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have {{under construction}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --NSH002 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely pointless piece of crap. --189.25.195.239 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 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).