Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox cruft; insignificant award that is mentioned in almost none of the articles the template is linked to. Lizard (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2017 (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).
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) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 21:17, 19 February 2017 (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).
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. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of {{infobox rugby biography}} / {{Infobox rugby union biography}} with article space uses. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • ughhh, what a mess. I suppose this should be listed at MFD? Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my personal userspace and its not a fork, its quite different, @Frietjes: broke it without finding out the difference and then refuse to respond to my query and now i have to get the original back and then forced to create more templates because I can no longer use the original ones. Rugby League and Rugby UNION are quite different sport when it comes to scoring points and thus would have a different scoring system, you should have gone through the template before destroying it and if you do not understand the difference, leave it alone. The IP who reported it has a habit of trying to use a "soccer" template on rugby related articles and reported my templates out of sheer trolling. I created a working fork (which is now broken thanks to Frietjes silliness) and then neither BOTHERED to tell me that they have nominated my templates for MfD, I just saw it by chance, how pathetic. I'm trying to fix it now using previous variables because there was nothing really wrong with it. I use the template on articles I create and those that need it the most. Frietjes change has actually done more damage to the original. The rugby union section of these {{Infobox rugby union biography}} is completely wrong, you botched it up, please next time ask before making changes.--Stemoc 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Stemoc, so, you are using a user-space template in article-space and expect editors to maintain it? I haven't made any substantial edits to {{Infobox rugby union biography}} since 2015, so you will have to be more specific. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Frietjes maintain what?, it was never broken. Apart from one minor issue, the template is perfect. The scoring system for Rugby league is different from Rugby union. see the "club" section for my template, as you can see, its options are different from what rugby league templates have. I created an actual "Rugby Union" template. League only has Caps, tries, field goals, and conversions as options whereas rugby union has caps, tries, penalties, drop goals and conversions (5 options instead of 4) and thus i created one that was prefect for just that, again, its not a fork, its an UPDATE which i intend to prefect and then try to move to the main space so that it can be used on all 90k rugby union related articles...--Stemoc 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Editors can keep what they like in their sandbox however userspace templates should never be used in articles so I've commented it out, Stemoc you can always create a new official template but at present you obviously can't use userspace templates, –Davey2010Talk 21:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with creating an official template is that its usually linked with other templates which are protected and thus it may take a long time to get something added/updated...but with personal userpace ones, you can fix, update and make random changes and others can fix issues they find with it as well, it works a a project. I created the template cause i was tired of seeing a "soccer" template being "forked" and used as a rugby template and anyone who knows the difference between both the sport will know how pathetic and silly it is..Infact, i used my "updated" infobox on articles I CREATED only but if this means that we are forced to use the 'soccer' infobox ONLY, I will now refuse to create anymore rugby union player related articles --Stemoc 22:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it is a pain in the ass but it's the way it is - You could always become a WP:Template editor which would mean you wouldn't have to wait, No one is forcing you to use the soccer one, You can easily create the other one as an actual template (despite the waiting etc), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 08:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per Davey2010 and it really should have been MFD'ed. But agree while in userspace it should not be used or linked from any article. To be used it should be in the Template: namespace.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:14, 22 February 2017 (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).
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 on 2017 March 5 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (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).
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) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use navbox with only two links, one of which is a redirect. DrKay (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2017 (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).
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) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; one link navbox. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template cruft; minor award which is hardly (if ever) mentioned on any of the awardees' articles. Certainly not career-defining. Lizard (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2017 (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).
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) 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Ping}}. Pppery 01:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom - Flow's a thing of the past (thank the lord!) so no need for this - I would suggest tho that if this gets deleted that someone goes through Whatlinkshere changes all of the "flowmention"s to "U" or "ping" so we don't break links, . –Davey2010Talk 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)d[reply]
  • Delete Cleanup  Done. I replaced uses of this template with ping. This template is redundant and Flow has been uninstalled. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alsee, Much appreciated :) –Davey2010Talk 03:53, 20 February 2017 (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).

Flow 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. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates that will not be used since Flow has been uninstalled from the English Wikipedia. Pppery 01:45, 19 February 2017 (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).
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) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every useful link in this box is already present in the infobox of each article where it appears, removing the need for this navbox. Such boxes have also been deleted several times in the past, such as with Virginia in September 2005, New York in November 2005, Florida in November 2005, Oregon in February 2006, etc. Imzadi 1979  00:09, 19 February 2017 (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).