Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22[edit]

Template:Spotlighted[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 and mark historical. Primefac (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spotlight closed years ago so this template adds to the clutter at pages such as Talk:Third World without being of any benefit. DexDor (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment activity occurred under this process, so this is an event marker. Rewrite the text to remove the "get involved" and add an INACTIVE process note. The rest of the text is the same as GOCE markers, that indicate that work was done. If there is no reason for this, there is no reason for GOCE either, since they are only markers of work having been done, and not anything else. However, as we did mark that work was done by this process, there's no reason to delete it otherwise, unless we should not recognize that work was done under any improvement process. We can also make this autocollapsed. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If space is a problem, suppressing the "get involved" text (as above) will remove most of the bloat. The remainder is a useful record of what occurred. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a useful record of what occurred" - useful to whom? DexDor (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim, perhaps marking the template historical —PC-XT+ 04:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I trimmed and added a {{historical}} to documentation. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:10, 29 February 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:NoOTRS30[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 move to {{NoOTRS}}. NoOTRS60 has a time parameter so NoOTRS30 isn't necessary, but the arbitrary "60" may confuse users. All uses of NoOTRS30 will be substituted to avoid a double-redirect. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NoOTRS30 with Template:NoOTRS60.
There's no need to have two templates for the same thing. {{NoOTRS60}} has a "day" parameter so that a period of 30 days can be specified by using {{NoOTRS60|30}}. I suggest merging the templates by replacing all use of {{NoOTRS30}} with {{NoOTRS60|30}}, then redirecting {{NoOTRS30}} to {{NoOTRS60}}.

It would maybe also be a good idea to adjust {{NoOTRS60}} so that the template always is substituted when used. It's commonly used in the {{di-no permission-notice}} notification template, and since the notification template always is substituted, it makes sense to substitute this template too. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete, per nom. Straightforward duplication. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and merge rename to {{NoOTRS}} there's no need for 60 or 30 -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, possibly rename per above —PC-XT+ 08:20, 25 February 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:Arcade History[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) 04:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable website, apparently without any editorial oversight. Not considered a reliable source. Unnecessary to have as an external link anyway, but inappropriate to keep it in a external links template form. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete linkfarm/linkspam template. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WT:VG##More_video_game_templates_up_for_deletion and previous precedent in deleting the GameFAQs template: this site's individual landing pages for each game are not useful enough to warrant any sort of systematic inclusion in external links sections. KLOV covers this site's niche with much more consistency and reliability. Agreed with everything else in the nomination. czar 04:18, 1 March 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:GameSpot[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) 03:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A template from a bygone era of Wikipedia. A link to one video game website is not needed, but it's also inappropriate to have it in a template form. WP:ELYES prefers official websites, not commercial ones. Anything noteworthy from GameSpot can be used as a reference, not as a standard external link. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we don't rely on GameSpot for basic game data anymore. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WT:VG##More_video_game_templates_up_for_deletion and previous precedent in deleting the GameFAQs template: this site's individual landing pages for each game are not useful enough to warrant any sort of systematic inclusion in external links sections. In singular (rare) situations, it might be a fine link, but a template isn't needed for that. Agreed with everything else in the nomination. czar 04:17, 1 March 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:Infobox Economy of the European 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 delete and replace transclusions with {{Infobox economy}}, which is what this template is almost a carbon-copy of anyway. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One valid use of this template in mainspace; infoboxes of whatever quality have regularly been deleted when used a single time.

Suggest subst before deletion, and if another enterprising user has time, suggest a conversion to either a more-broadly used template or at the minimum use of Template:Infobox. Izno (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sounds reasonable. merge with the article, then delete or redirect. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete or redirect as suggested as single-use infobox —PC-XT+ 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think after substituting, a redirect would me more appropriate than deletion based on the prolific revision history. Jolly Ω Janner 02:14, 8 March 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:Tn Yuki Bhambri[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) 04:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Tn template and it seems like this is a case where one user (User:Vencin) has created templates and put them in his own created Category:Tennis name templates without project consensus. It would seem that these templates are not notable and not needed (according to the tennis discussion) so I start by nominating this unused template and depending on outcome look at the rest. Qed237 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The template (and there's a whole series of them) merely outputs the player's name as a link along with the corresponding flag icon. And no, the icon is not inherently inappropriate, before anyone makes that comment. Tennis pros are registered with a particular national federation, which is what the icon represents, and they are widely used in tennis coverage. But there's really no need to use a separate template for each and every player. Seems like an awful lot of maintenance pitfalls for something that can be accomplished with more generally useable markup. Just unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Oknazevad. The use of this template is so limited as to be non-worthy of existence. The other foible is that in charts where this is applied, only the first use of the name should be linked. So it's useless thereafter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have several thousand tennis player articles and this template is simply way too much hassle for too little benefit.--Wolbo (talk) 22:06, 22 February 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:2016EarlyStateResults[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) 04:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used in one article (Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016) and is not likely to be used anywhere else. So this template is not needed as it can simply be replaced with a table in the article. I have nothing against this fine table, just that it unnecessarily have been made into a template. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the template has now removed it from the article. Does that mean he agree in the deletion?
  • Delete undefined "early" and NPOV violation since it is only about Republicans, and only about the USA instead of any part of the world. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:48, 22 February 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:Republican Primary Popular Vote, 2016[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) 04:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used in one article (Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016) and is not likely to be used anywhere else. So this template is not needed as it can simply be replaced with a table in the article. I have nothing against this fine table, just that it unnecessarily have been made into a template. Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the template has now removed it from the article. Does that mean he agree in the deletion?
  • Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to indicate this is for the POTUS selection, and not any old primary (such as for state office). -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 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:TV Tonight[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 replace/delete the TV Tonight template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:TV Tonight with Template:Cite web.
A single website doesn't need its own template to cite its articles. {{Cite web}} will work just fine (or any of the cite templates for that matter). Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or just convert all instances of this template to Cite web and then delete it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fully noting a website doesn't need its own template, it is convienent to use when citing the website as a source (which it is very frequently used for when citing in Australian television related articles), because the website name, and the first and last parameters are pre-filled (there is only one author of all articles), thus saving time for editors. Only the URL, Title, Date and Access Date parameters need to be filled in, versus using cite web in which you would have to manually enter at least three other parameters. This template (which I didn't create but frequently use) is just a fairly harmless time save. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in any case, this template should be rewritten with care. For example, page 2013 in Australian television is on overflow. Pldx1 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Looking at the code, the sole difference between {{TV Tonight}} and {{cite web}}, is that the former adds |publisher=[[TV Tonight]]|first=David|last=Knox to the latter. If that were worth a template, I could come up with countless new similar templates, and I don't think it is because it hinders forward compatibility in case we add new parameters to {{cite web}}. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct about that being the only difference. I understand what you're saying about forward compatibility, but by the same token if the change in parameters were that important, this template could be updated to reflect it. In all likelihood, it wouldn't be strictly necessary for quoting this one website. -- Whats new?(talk) 09:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with {{cite web}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SporkBot has already replaced all uses, before the discussion has closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 3 March 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:North Wales Crusaders 2012 Squad[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) 04:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid WP:TCREEP, current consensus on the rugby league wikiproject is that navboxes for historic squads should only be created if they won a significant trophy/championship. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was going to suggest them all be redirected to a current squad, but I don't think they are notable enough for such a template. Mattlore (talk) 19:40, 22 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_22&oldid=1084289526"