Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 9

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

September 9

[edit]

Template:Salt

[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 no consensus. Varying opinions, leading to a rewrite to which no one has objected; let's give it time and see if it proves any more useful than the original. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Db-g4}}. (If there is a concern that a page is a recreation, it should just be tagged for speedy deletion than have to go through this step first.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic Salt. That was the name of my band in high school. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be redundant to RFPP, but that's irrelevant when this template is more efficient than the often-backlogged RFPP: it's far simpler to have one admin delete the page and determine whether it needs salting than have one admin delete, then another have to investigate the history independently. In any case, it is not redundant to the CSD templates: this template asks for salting, they ask for deleting. Nothing in the CSD templates mentions salting. BethNaught (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - serves a slightly different purpose than {{db-g4}}. Should be used more frequently where appropiate. --TL22 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, simply not needed, and redundant to G4. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not redundant to G4 because pages can and do be salted if they are repeatedly recreated and deleted, not through an XFD, which is what G4 requires, but via CSD. BethNaught (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this template is intended to speedily delete things, there should be a matching speedy delete criterion (otherwise it's outright asking admins to ignore the rules and delete the page anyway, which may be a valid course of action in some cases, but really shouldn't be happening often enough that we need a template for it). In many cases, G4 works, but you can just use {{db-g4}} for those. If G4 doesn't work, then either there's another legitimate speedy template you can use for that (G3 or G5, perhaps), or else the page is not speediable and you shouldn't be putting speedy deletion templates on it. --ais523 06:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    Please. It is meant to be used this way: add a speedy deletion tag, such as G4 or perhaps A7, A9 or G10, to show it needs to be deleted, and also add {{salt}} to alert to the deleting admin of the need for salting. The deleting admin can't be expected to check if the page is a recreation of a page protected at a different title. BethNaught (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can buy that, actually, but in that case the template could perhaps do with a redesign to make its purpose clearer. The way it's worded at the moment, it's a bit unclear from the template itself how it's meant to be used. (Perhaps making it into a parameter of {{db-meta}} is the way to go, or perhaps not; I'd expect it to be smaller in order to serve its purpose, though, perhaps about the same size as a typical cleanup tag.)
    At the moment much of the content is redundant to {{uw-salt}} (something I hadn't noticed earlier), which should make it easier to trim down. (That template itself is a little dubious, too; not in concept but in wording.)
    All this said, this situation is one where you can probably just leave a little bolded handwritten note above the speedy template (something I've done in other cases), rather than needing a specific tag. So I'm still a bit conflicted on this. --ais523 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I've now tried a bold rewrite to make the template better at its job (getting right to the heart of what it's for, rather than containing a lot of redundant information, in addition to not pushing the speedy template off the screen). I also removed the reference to {{uw-salt}}, which seems to be talking about a different situation (due to its repeated mention of the title blacklist); notifying users of our standard policies is good, but suggesting that newpage patrollers use a complex and WP:BITEy warning template that doesn't really fit the situation doesn't really. I'm assuming that if an article gets salted and repeatedly recreated, the person recreating it will probably have realised why that's a bad idea by now; if not, the template might need some extra explanation. --ais523 08:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Eponymous medical signs

[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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Eponymous medical signs. ~ RobTalk 04:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. There is only one place where it makes sense to transclude this - List of eponymously named medical signs - where (if fulfilling its intended role) it simply duplicates the content in a less accessible way; and the list is tagged for notability. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:31, 9 September 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:Firefighting

[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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Firefighting. ~ RobTalk 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Firefighting with Template:Wildland Firefighting.
The {{Wildland Firefighting}} template is a "part of a series" template that should be converted to a navbox. I am already in the process of doing that. While doing so, it seemed that it would also be appropriate to merge these two templates as there is a significant amount of overlap. There can easily be subsections made in the navbox for items specific to wildland but it seems that the two templates can and should be merged. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:58, 9 September 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:Non-free use rationale album cover/old

[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. Unused, creator consented, permalink may illustrate past version. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Originally created with rationale "Frozen snapshot, to illustrate specific reference transclusions in discussions", but I don't see any links from discussions, just maintenance lists. Any theoretical future use would be better served by a permalink specifying an oldid. – Wdchk (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdchk: Good to delete. The discussions were back in 2007, when the album cover rationale template was first introduced, and people were amending it on the fly at the same time as it was being discussed, so at that time a frozen snapshot transcluded on a page was useful. That's all very ancient history now, so this is good to remove. Jheald (talk) 15:43, 9 September 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:Heroes for Hire

[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 speedily deleted per WP:G4 by RockMagnetist on request by BU Rob13. Alakzi (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox cruft. These characters appear in tens of Marvel comic book series. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 since it applies and surpasses any opinion of mine. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pace web

[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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Pace web. ~ RobTalk 04:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template a little under eight years ago. It creates a formatted link to an external web address for bus routes operated by Pace, a bus operator in the Chicago. The individual routes are not notable and don't have articles; the template is used on train station articles such as Joliet Union Station. This information is transient and probably not notable; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The external link to the Metra site at the bottom of every article contains the same information. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 9 September 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:Alum

[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 don't merge. ~ RobTalk 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Alum with Template:Faculty.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 9 September 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:Civil unions in Europe

[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. ~ RobTalk 04:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:LGBT rights in Europe and Template:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 9 September 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).

Orphaned ISBN templates

[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 all. ~ RobTalk 20:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned ISBN templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Cite isbn wasn't clear on consensus (with challenges and disputes all over the place) so I wasn't sure. I'll make a bot request. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 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:Legend of the Year

[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) BethNaught (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a navbox for a minor award with no article of its own on Wikipedia. The award is not a biographically defining element for its recipients, so this navbox is overkill. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 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:TBWNN

[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. ~ RobTalk 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful navigation template. All links directly relating to subtopics of Thebandwithnoname are redirects to itself, leaving the template to navigate nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 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_September_9&oldid=1084289557"