Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

PennDOT S-line 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 Delete -FASTILY 01:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PennDOT color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PennDOT lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PennDOT stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/PennDOT left/Parkway Limited (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/PennDOT right/Parkway Limited (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused s-line templates for the Parkway Limited; the now-deleted Conrail templates filled this function until the creation of Module:Adjacent stations/Conrail. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2019 (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).

Module:Module link

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Module link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Module:Separated entries; The closure at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019 January 14#Template:Mli rejected the use of this module. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2019 (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:Tokyo Broadcasting System drama 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tokyo Broadcasting System drama templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation template was left with only one link after the others were deleted in other TfD discussions, rendering this one unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2019 (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:Hunan Television Golden Eagle Theatre

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hunan Television Golden Eagle Theatre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What is the purpose of this navigation template? The Banner talk 20:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no article about the Golden Eagle Theatre so this is entirely unreferenced. Gets lots of mentions in succession boxes, eg In the Name of the People (2017) (see bottom), also unreferenced. Difficult to recommend anything but delete given the lack of content. Nigej (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Picture

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Japanese Movie Critics Awards currently only covers 1991, although the Japanese wikipedia has many more. This is all backwards. Create the content, then a navbox might be suitable. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not against a notable award having a navbox for award winners, as that is accepted practice, but I agree with Nigej. First create the article with the content, where it is also sourced, then create the navbox. As it stands, this is basically unsourced information which might not be even correct. --Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese Movie Critics Awards has expanded since I wrote the above comment, albeit with unreferenced material. Nigej (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Director

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Director (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Feature Film

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Feature Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor award. Nigej (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Director

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Director (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor award. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actor

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actress

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actor

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor award. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2019 (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:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actress

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor award. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2019 (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 YouTube personality

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 2019 February 21. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 district of Iraq

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 merge to Template:Infobox settlement. Feel free to delete other if the replacement is completed (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox district of Iraq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox district of Iraq with Template:Infobox settlement.
I don't see any reason for a custom wrapper on 9 transclusions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what there is to be merged. Simple replacement should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pigsonthewing: I think we are saying the same thing... The only 2 options WP:TWINKLE gives are merge and delete... I'm basically saying merge this by replacing it. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A (country) district is not a settlement. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DePiep: you understand that currently :{{Infobox district of Iraq}} IS using {{Infobox settlement}}... It just is a wrapper. So your argument doesn't really make sense. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I understand that. I oppose. What actually does not make sense is that people keep mixing up objects' definitions. A country is not a settlement, and so are not their subdivisions nor their historical parts.
    The notion that you claim "but wikipedia does so" is OR, nonsense actually, and indicates more bad stuff. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I happen to read this guideline just now (not a user's perception then, nor a /doc suggestion): "(MOS:when article name in plural)": Articles on groups of country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, States of Nigeria, States of Mexico, Provinces of Sweden. (That is, by shortcut: our Guideline notes that country subdivisions are classes. Settlements are not). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Zackmann, you might know SAP software? They keep abstracting things into "number of people", mathematicaly very correct and unusable. In WP this would trranslate to: "One meta infobox with all parameters we might need". OTOH, it is called "orthography" in Wikidata: define objects by asking the right questions. Then organise (=relate) these objects by more questions. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
        @DePiep: I think this is a case of agree to disagree. lol. It seemed (in Italics because I now see it is more than that) that your objection was that the template is called a "district" so it shouldn't use "settlement". My only point was that it already does use the settlement template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not disagree about current Wikipedia facts. I claim that these WP situations are misguided. Even {{Infobox region}} is misguided. One cannot deny real life facts (i.e., the diff between objects 'human settlement' an 'administrative org'). -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @DePiep I completely agree with you about this fact. It's illogical to the template titled settlment when in fact a better title would be {{Infobox populated area}} or something like that. If you there's every a discussion about this please can someone ping me as an interested party. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I have told you elsewhere: "if you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page." Your continued objection to mergers of the template's wrappers and similar on this basis in the face of over ten years of such consensus, is highly disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I write this argument in the TfD discussion(s) where it is relevant. So far, you are only trying to silence me and shout me down, BTW. In bolded distractions and WP:PA's and even. Diffs will be there. (I'm still waiting for an argument). -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the third time in recent weeks that I have had cause to remind you: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist." You're skating on very thin ice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on precedent: see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Infobox_settlement_wrappers for an established precedent. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Just 9 transclusions. Most Iraq districts don't use it. eg Erbil District, Al-Manathera District etc etc. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ given that this is a wrapper, I think it will be confusing for editors to have it replaced by an infobox titled 'settlement' when this is in fact about a district. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tom (LT):.... {{Infobox district}} itself redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so it has long been decided that district IS a settlement. Additionally the fact that this would be "confusing" contradicts that fact that such templates as {{Infobox state}}, {{Infobox Chilean region}}, {{Infobox neighborhood}}, {{Infobox hamlet}} and {{Infobox Cambodian district}} ALL redirect to {{Infobox settlement}}. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and it has been used in ths manner for over ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zackmann08, Pigsonthewing, DePiep I support merging or redirecting these templates to the main one, but I don't support replacement and deletion. I definitely see the benefits of centralisation here. I just think it's confusing to have a template relating to a district etc. replaced by one relating to a settlement. I think that prima facie districts and settlements are not the same, and I think this fact is true whether or not there has been incremental agreement for merging over the past 10 years. My main issue is with the name of the template {{Infobox settlement}} being confusing to editors. I don't think it's a good look for new or future editors who want to edit our articles to start by seeing something that is clearly wrong and wondering what's going on around here. I also don't think it's useful for current editors because of the confusing title. Clearly DePiep shares these concerns and the fact that there are so many templates out there must mean some creators of said templates were similarly confused and couldn't find a logically titled template to do the job. I hope you can understand my point and that there is some way to compromise here... should we move this discussion to another venue? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is, Tom (LT): not even Wikipedia can change and even mix up the concepts of Settlement and Country (-parts, -subdivision, -historical, -whatever.). A "region" is a country-thing (per concept, so what a bad thing is this {{Infobox region}}!), and a 'metropolitan area' is settlement by concept. The argument that "is has been done at enwiki for over a decade" makes it even worse, as does "the documentation says so". (Sure we could do with one {{Infobox thing}}). -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your point-making has become tendentious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Pigsonthewing, comments like this are not constructive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree; that's why I said they are disruptive; DePiep should stop making them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        DePiep it is true that these things are different conceptually but I do see a benefit in having a single infobox, particularly if the parameters are the same. As I see it, the options are (a) maintain status quo, (b) rename template to something more logical, or (c) create a region template and merge regions down there (although the parameters are likely to be the same or very similar) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, please explain what "merging" or "redirecting" would entail, that replacement and deletion would not, in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Benefits would be that an infobox remains with a logical title that editors can use, however the coding is contained in a central place that can be more easily updated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't ask you to enumerate what you perceive to be the benefits; I asked you what, in your view, such actions would entail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have come around to your point of view. Regardless of my feelings about the title, the template as it is could be simplified considerably if lots of these wrappers were removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support replacement. In the current implementation of this template system, it would be more beneficial for the code to be centralized and used by the main template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (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 Weekend Dramas

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBS Weekend Dramas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, template without base article The Banner talk 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (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 Variety Programs

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBS Variety Programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, template without base article The Banner talk 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (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:NSFW

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't really a template, but a pseudo-redirect. The original NSFW template was moved to to {{UFW}} and this does nothing. It has no history or old code to preserve. While it is tagged with {{historical}} there has been no discussion on either page that supports it. It should either act as a real redirect or be deleted. The deletion option is supported by the discussion at Template talk:UFW#Requested move 14 August 2018, where editors raised the concern that NSFW is already well known as "Not safe for work", which has nothing to do with this template. I personally support deletion. Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NSFW=Not suitable for Wikipedia. It is unused in main space. Article NSFW redirects to Not safe for work and WP:NSFW redirects to Wikipedia:Pornography. All a bit confusing so seems to me that it would be best to delete rather than redirect. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect I am the creator. The NSFW was chosen specifically because it is easy to remember. It was only intended for draft/userspace in the AfC process and would never be used in mainspace. The template lead to a inclusion of the Reject option in AfC so no one is using it anymore. While I was away from regular internet access another user took it upon themselves to create the other template and instead of moving this one, replace it, which delayed deletion of a whole bunch of junk pages and caused other issues like this. There are a bunch of incoming links from discussions still. I don't think anyone should be confused by this template. Eventually this can be deleted when we the procees we used to get to Reject is futher in history.
A now blocked sockpuppet messed around with this and changed all the translutions over after a move discussion. The correct thing to do is place a proper redirect to Template:UFW which gives me attribution and preserves the usefulness of incoming links. If you look at Template talk:UFW you can see the move discussion and that that page is really belonging to this page before it was moved. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your attribution is still preserved in the edit history of {{UFW}} as it was a proper move and not a copy/paste. This template, on the other hand, gives you none of that. I would also not call 10 articles a bunch. These can all be changed in less than 1 minute to the new template if that is what's wanted. --Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No he changed a while bunch - some of which I've gone and G13'd manually now. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments. Very confusing, particularly given this is for a very non-standard use of the terminology. I support delete as per Nigej to resolve this confusing situation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No this was the correct state before the sockpuppet messed with it [1] Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the use of {{UFW}} on Draft:Swaralipi (film) I'm wondering why we need that template anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 15 February 2019 (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).