Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17

[edit]

Template:Iwerks

[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 on 2017 October 25. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:10, 25 October 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).

Template:2017-18 Dota Pro Circuit

[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) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a Template:Professional Dota 2 competition where these can belong. Not to mention most of the entries included here aren't covered by enough mainstream sources to warrant articles anyway, at least for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it should be deleted, though primarily because only one (1) of the articles currently listed in the template actually exist. If all three the blue links actually went to legit articles, I would have been "keep all the way", but there's no point to have a navigation template that doesn't help you navigate anywhere. Currently, this does look like a list of articles that could probably be created. ~Mable (chat) 18:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it because I wanted to make pages for the tournaments of the upcoming season. 1. Not all Tournaments have been confirmed. 2. The Season is ongoing so how should i have created pages for them. 3. The Page for the First Tournament I made got edited and now redirects to the Dota 2 page. I made many pages, for esports but they all got deleated. It seems like the Wikipedia community doesnt want to have esports in it. At least we have the liquipedia. ~Tiph12180 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed your signature which was impersonating another editor. Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How should I have made pages for them?" In short you shouldn't. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS point out that articles should only be made if the subject is noteworthy and are well documented in third party sources. It's not a case of not wanting esports, its a case of only wanting it when it comes with reliable sources. - - X201 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that current Wikipedia policies and what we consider reliable sources do not really go well with most eSports-related articles, but as you said, this is why Liquidpedia exists. Unless the tournament/league itself has wide third-party coverage (look up the TI6 and TI7 articles for how they should be), then they really should not exist here. All you basically did was list dates, teams, and the bracket while only using a couple of first-party sources, which does not give it notability. I'm willing to fix any of these articles up to the TI standard assuming they meet the general notability guidelines, but at the moment I just don't see enough real coverage of them for me to do so. Perhaps a separate Dota Pro Circuit article can be created once more of these minor tournaments have concluded, where most of the info you have been creating can belong in the future. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give some advice on how to write about esports tournaments in an encyclopedic manner, you could write the articles more like these: Template:Capcom Cup 2016. A bit of prose and some reliable secondary sources go a long way in keeping your articles safe from deletion. ~Mable (chat) 11:11, 18 October 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).

Template:Dhammakaya

[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) Nihlus 00:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:48, 17 October 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).

Template:SailingAt2020SummerOlympics

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seems premature to be creating templates over two years in advance. sure, we have Template:FootballAt2020SummerOlympics, but in that case qualification is happening right now. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 17 October 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).

Template:SSKZ3ElimHist

[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 speedy delete. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates the table in the article Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 17 October 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).

Template:SRO Cinemaserye

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

provides no navigation Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 October 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).

Template:SK-FedRep

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date. I didn't find a template like this for other provinces. for senators, we have Template:Senate of Canada, and for MPs we have Template:Current Members of the Canadian House of Commons (although the second template doesn't group the members by province) Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 17 October 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).

Template:SKM (Tricity)

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, should be added to SKM (Tricity) or deleted. navigation between stops is already covered by Template:SKM (Tricity) stops Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 October 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).

Template:SI dimensionless units

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and it's not clear where it would be used (navigation between units is provided by Template:SI units) Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 17 October 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).

Template:SIF color

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and appears to duplicate {{Staten Island Ferry color}} Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 17 October 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).

Template:SHM box

[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) Nihlus 00:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, redundant to {{rint|shanghai|XX}} Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per nom. Useddenim (talk) 21:13, 17 October 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).

Template:SCClassic

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, almost entirely redlinks Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 17 October 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).

Template:SBS Broadcasting Group

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused now that SBS Broadcasting Group is defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 17 October 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).

Template:SBAWB

[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 speedy delete as G7: user requested. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

given that SmackBot is no longer SmackBot, I am guessing that this particular template is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 17 October 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).

Template:SAMPs

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused (created in 2008) so it appears this one is no longer needed Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 17 October 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).

Template:S-t

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, but unused and easily confused with the other S- templates (like {{s-ttl}}). Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 17 October 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).

Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template marked as historical. Would like input on that before any soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:32, 17 October 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).

Template:Lego films

[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. Deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:23, 17 October 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).

Template:International Humanist and Ethical Union

[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. But, surely it needs some improvement. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor navigation, way too few links Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • So add some? Why is deletion the solution? Tony OU812 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. There are enough blue links in it to retain it, but all the unlinked entries serve no purpose. If we're absolutely certain that an entry on it is notable and that an article should and eventually will be created, then it should be redlinked. Absent that certainty, and "dead" entry should just be removed. It's not the purpose of navboxes to list non-notable things which people cannot even navigate to info about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:22, 17 October 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).

Template:Genderspivak

[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. No clear usage shown in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • impressive template, try reading to code! but it's not clear why we would ever need something this complicated. however, I cannot conclude that it isn't being used since the template may be substituted, so we may want to keep it. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 October 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).

Template:Map-intro

[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) Nihlus 00:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient out-of-date warning Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. I may be a deletionist, but when it comes to TFD, I am not "HEIL UNUSED SEIG HEIL". KMF (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, since we are prefixing our !votes with "snow" for some invalid reason per reason 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. the age of the template is clearly indication that it has no likelihood of being used in the future (it's been over 10 years). Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 October 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).

Template:Sqrt

[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 redirect to Template:Radic. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Sqrt with Template:Radic.
{{Sqrt}} displays the square root (no explicit value in the radical symbol) of a string passed as parameter 1. {{Radic}} displays an arbitrary root of a string passed as parameter 1, with the root (value to display in the radical symbol) is passed as parameter 2. If no parameter 2 is passed, then no value is displayed in the radical symbol, meaning an implicit square root. So {{sqrt|foo}} is exactly equivalent to {{radic|foo}}. I therefore propose redirecting {{sqrt}} to {{radic}}. Centralizing this formatting template helps reduce variation should there become consensus to alter how it gets formatted. DMacks (talk) 03:56, 17 October 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).

Template:Wiktionary redirect

[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 speedy keep. TFD is not the appropriate venue.Seek community consensus in an RFC at VP, since this is more about effective mass-deletion of all soft-redirect(s) to a sister-project. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Wiktionary redirects are actually necessary since the internal search engine now cross-searches Wiktionary results, and it hence defeats the purpose of why Wiktionary soft redirects existed in the first place, if this template is deleted, all pages that are Wiktionary redirects in mainspace should also be deleted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is in effect a proposal for the mass deletion of the 1339 pages the template is transcluded on. I think that's slightly beyond the scope of TfD. Maybe you could start an RfC at WP:RFD, or at the village pump? – Uanfala 08:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested above, the sequence should probably be (1) have the soft redirects deleted at RFD or AFD (or through an RFC elsewhere) and then (2) this template will be orphaned so deletion will be uncontroversial. however, if we were to delete this template without deleting the pages, then what? this is really about having these soft redirect pages and less about the template used to format the message on the soft redirect pages. Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 17 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_17&oldid=1086338166"