Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25[edit]

Template:Roads of Nashville[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) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per past precedents, these sorts of templates have been deleted in favor of using the "Transportation in <county> County, <state>" categories as the county categories are/should be subcategories of the appropriate metropolitan area categories. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:San Antonio area highways for a listing of the past precedents, if desired. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 27 December 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:Roads of Bowling Green[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) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per past precedents, these sorts of templates have been deleted in favor of using the "Transportation in <county> County, <state>" categories as the county categories are/should be subcategories of the appropriate metropolitan area categories. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:San Antonio area highways for a listing of the past precedents, if desired. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 27 December 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:Roads of Owensboro[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) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per past precedents, these sorts of templates have been deleted in favor of using the "Transportation in <county> County, <state>" categories as the county categories are/should be subcategories of the appropriate metropolitan area categories. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:San Antonio area highways for a listing of the past precedents, if desired. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 27 December 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:Roads of Butler County, Kentucky[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) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per past precedents, these sorts of templates have been deleted in favor of using the "Transportation in <county> County, <state>" categories. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:San Antonio area highways for a listing of the past precedents, if desired. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 27 December 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:IPL Winners[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 relist to Jan 6. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (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:Ethnic stereotypes USA[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 merge with {{Stereotypes in the United States}} and redirect. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous template

See Template:Stereotypes in the United States Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes in the United States contains every item found in Ethnic stereotypes USA and thus serves no purpose to have a second template. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge any missing links with the main template, and redirect or delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:14, 25 December 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:Monthly maintenance category[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. As with the cleanup messages (discussion below), there seems to be a need for discussion held elsewhere before a solid deletion rationale can be made. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template is unclear. The template has no transclusions, and is a wrapper of Template:Monthly clean-up category. Also, this template was created in 2010 with possibly some sort of plans to create a separate distinction from "clean-up" categories, possibly with a separate category. Is there discussion somewhere in the past 5 years stating there are plans for this template? In lieu of this information, I say delete as redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is supposed to be for use on categories like this. It appears that the separation between the two classes was muddied over the years. Only a little work is needed to make the template function properly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This is the template meant for maintenance categories, of which by far not all are clean-up categories. If anything, the other template should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then maybe the category and the other template should be renamed to "maintenance" titles instead of "clean-up" titles. Either way, there is unnecessary redundancy, not to mention that renaming these templates and categories could disrupt the function of some bots that maintain these categories unless they are made aware of the changes beforehand. The way it stands, the nominated template has no transclusions, showing its current usefulness. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why clean-up was split from the general maintenance templates, but this is the central template. As I said, if anything, it is the other template that should have been nominated. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: Deleting the other template would cause a lot of disruption on Wikipedia since that template is utilized by several bots. The only solution I see (if the title of the other template is that much of a concern) is to delete this template then move the other template here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two good alternatives: 1. Keep the two templates, as is. 2. Redirect the other template here. No need to delete it. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:04, 25 December 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:Jack Cooper (musician, composer, arranger)[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 keep with NPASR, as there was little in the way of dissent but also little in the way of support. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template has way too many links. It looks like this template is listing everything that is connected to this musician. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be done for the template to function properly or be acceptable? Shelyric (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thing to do is to remove every album/recording in the list that doesn't have a proper Wikipedia article. There should be no external links in a navbox, and there should be no items without a link period. Navboxes are intended to navigate to existing articles, not present someone's complete discography. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've drastically reduced it, removing duplicate links, unlinked text, external links. I think it's serviceable now, but I think some of the links are probably still spurious. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, it was drastically reduced and the name appears on those music related pages. But, there were several links taken away that actually were working properly to wiki pages (about 4 or 5) Shelyric (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, now that the unlinked text and external links have been removed. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 27 December 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:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Use mdy dates[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, as demonstrated by getting two relists and then a vote in favor of having this discussion somewhere else. Perhaps WP:VP/Pr would be best. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not needed anymore, due to Fram's changes to the dmy, mdy, and English variants categories. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These categories should have the {{Monthly maintenance category}} template in them which utilizes these and allows the distinction between clean-up and maintenance categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No reason why these categorie sshould have the "monthly maintenance category" template, which puts these cats back in the cleanup categories anyway (and that template is up for deletion as being unused). One can see the diff between a cat which uses the "monthly maintenance cat" template[1] and one which uses a specific template (in this case for "Use English" variations, but the same applies to the mdy cats)[2]. There doesn't seem to be any distinction between the "maintenance" and "cleanup" template in reality, apart from an extremely minimal change in the text (not in the categories): {{#ifeq:{{{clean-up|}}}|no|maintain them|work through the backlog}}. Removing the mdy, dmy and use English variant cats from the clean-up cats made this a bit less populated, removing these messages from the cleanup template will make it a bit lighter and easier to check as well. Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss elsewhere. After 30 days posted TfD, there seems little interest in deleting all those templates, as if forcing a design change by mass deletion, and hence the obvious result is to discuss elsewhere (for weeks/months) and then reach a consensus, of several people, based on merits of design rather than rush to mass-delete templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 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:Convert/2[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, as outdated and not needed (and not needed to make the old convert work). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are outdated since 2013. This set of ({...Convert/n}) does not add any serious help beyond current {{Convert}} options. Also, their /documentation is hard to follow, if at all.

See also the TfD re Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_23#Template:Convert.2Ftext2 Template:Convert/text2 -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if these are needed to make sure that old convert works properly (And as we are not deleting parserfunction CONVERT, the subtemplates needed to make it work properly should be kept) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these templates are needed for the old Convert because they are how free-form ranges are handled, as {convert/old} did not even allow 3-number ranges until {convert/3} was added in 2009. Currently, {convert/2} is also being used to debug errors in the Lua script version of Convert (see: Lua range testcases). -Wikid77 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Test succeeded two years ago, takeover by Module:Convert completed. The module (and so {{Convert}}) intentionally does not rely on the old, parsed template set any more. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I will make a strong suggestion that all the parserfunction CONVERT templates be moved to templates.wikia.com and something like GitHub to preserve the coding for use by the wider MediaWiki community in the world at large, such as like what happens when we use GitHub to register our open source projects, the parserfunction codings are open source code for MediaWiki, and the CONVERT set is useful for those who do not deploy LUA, as well as good complex code examples. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, these are not used by {{convert/old}}. these are forks of {{convert}} which were created for 'free form' multi-value conversion. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do you advise? [3] -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frietjes is right, they are not used by {{convert/old}}. I'm not quite sure, though, why this would be an issue. The old version is no longer needed anyway. Jimp 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: by now, the 'Keep' argument by IP is refuted, and both Frietjes and Jimp have ruled out the argument of usefulness-somewhere. (actually, I am surprised by the relisting). -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if these templates are used by {{Convert/old}} (a claim that is hard to check btw), they could stay for reason IP mentioned (keep parserforms complete for background reasons). However, they should be deprecated still (not to be used in mainspace). -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: they do not follow WP:MOSNUM re × punctuation & unit symbols:
{{convert/2|20|x|30|ft|m}} → {{convert/2|20|x|30|ft|m}}
Well compare with old Convert: {{Convert/old |20|x|30|ft|m}}  →, as one "m" was how the old Convert displayed the 'x' output range. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the other forks, these are difficult to use and only deal with very unusual cases. Creating ad hoc solutions to obscure problems is not very helpful (and very unhelpful if they ignore MOSNUM). Jimp 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep these ad hoc forks. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These templates Convert/2, Convert/3 and Convert/4 are not forks but rather, the original wp:wrapper templates for conversion ranges with free-form text; and because they are NOT forks, they will not run without Template:Convert, unlike the later Lua fork which can be run as {{convert/sandboxlua}} without {convert}. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really making the argument/complaint that "the sandbox is a fork"? -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep by author. These templates Convert/2, Convert/3, and Convert/4 are the original templates which allow free-form separator text between numbers, and not "forks" at all but rather wp:wrapper templates created in 2009-2011 (4-6 years prior) and used to develop advanced features such as auto-rounding of related amounts, plus debug some errors in the Lua script version of Convert (see: Template:Convert/testcases/range). For years, the Lua Convert has displayed nonsense range "41-41" °C for temperature range 105-106 °F, as with {convert|105|-|106|F|C} → 105–106 °F (41–41 °C), while Convert/2 shows the sensible range: {{convert/2|105|-|106|F|C}} with 3-digit results, so I advise to discuss details at Template_talk:Convert/2, stop deleting these helpful templates, and focus on fixing long-term errors in the Lua version of Convert instead. Meanwhile note the support for free-form range text, as:
    • {convert/2 |45|through|55|mph|km/h} shows "{{convert/2|45|through|55|mph|km/h}}" versus
    • {convert|45|through|55|mph|km/h} gives "45 through[convert: unknown unit]"
    Plus there are many other problems with the Lua Convert, while Convert/2 works well. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:21, revised 12:45, 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't work well. As you have read above, it does not confirm MOSNUM. -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as has been pointed out to me, Wikibooks:Template:Convert is the parserfunction version. Can these ancillary versions of Convert similarly be added to the Wikibook? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 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:Black Veil Brides timeline[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) Primefac (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usless, uneeded templete for a membership timeline. Teddy2Gloves(talk)(contribs) 05:13, 25 December 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 Philippines government[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 relist to Jan 6. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Philippine government works are in the public domain, except that payment for commercial distribution and use is not connected to copyright. That license template conflicts with this Commons license template, and several Philippine government files are on Commons as free files, and some are on Wikipedia as "fair use" files (not true). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:53, 25 December 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_December_25&oldid=1138533749"