Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9[edit]

Template:FC Istres 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) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore as the club is playing in the 7th tier of French football after relegation in summer 2015 due to financial reasons. Kq-hit (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, don't need roster templates for 7th tier clubs. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they don't play in a fully pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the template is no longer likely to contain links to players with articles since the club is operating in a non-fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 17:08, 12 September 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:AS Cannes 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) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. The club plays in the 6th tier of French football. "On 1 July 2014, Cannes were officially excluded from professional football in France after a ruling from the Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion relating to the club's financial situation. For the 2015–16 season, the remnants of Cannes will play of the Division of Honor, in the Mediterranean Regional League of the French football system." AS Cannes Kq-hit (talk) 22:00, 9 September 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:AC Arles-Avignon 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) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. In October 2015, the club was dropped to DHR which is the 7th tier of French football. Source Kq-hit (talk) 21:53, 9 September 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:Evian Thonon Gaillard F.C. 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No current squad: "At the end of the 2015–16 season, the club was relegated from Ligue 2, and further demoted by the DNCG to the Championnat de France Amateur, the fourth level of football in France. The club then entered receivership, meaning that even if it survives it will suffer a further administrative relegation at the end of the 2016–17 season. The club withdrew from the competition on 9 August." (see Evian Thonon Gaillard F.C.) Kq-hit (talk) 21:35, 9 September 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:Mass airports[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) 03:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and redundant to Template:MA Airport, which is a better way of presenting the same information. NSH002 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to use the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 12 September 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:P/s & Template:S/c[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 after replacing with {{section link}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These templates produce section links: {{p/s}} producing full links and {{s/c}} producing in-page links. They are used almost exclusively on pages related to English grammar. They are redundant to {{section link}}, which is both more clearly named and much more widely used (over 24k transclusions, compared to <100 for these combined). Moreover, {{p/s}} styles its links differently, using a colon (":") rather than a section symbol ("§") to separate page title and section; I believe a section symbol to be preferable. I assert that it would be an improvement to replace uses of these two templates with either {{section link}} or manual wikilinks (for some instances of {{s/c}}). Since that improvement would orphan these templates, I'm filing this TfD to establish consensus for these replacements first. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the above transclusion counts (which I heve just added), while {{section link}} has 24,725 transclusions, clearly showing the community's preference for the latter, I see no reason not to replace and delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing, clearly better to just use {{section link}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - Three templates performing the same function are unnecessarily redundant, especially since two of them combined constitute less than 0.4% of the total uses of the three templates. The community preference for {{section link}} is clear and overwhelming. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:23, 17 September 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:EnciclopediaDeiPapi[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 translate Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English parameter names (apparently in German, though the target site is Italian). Could be kept if translated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and translate parameters. This will eventually link every pope to this Italian source. I can translate the parameters and I don't think that will affect those of us importing data from German Wikipedia where they use this en masse. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after translating parameters. --NSH002 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 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:Piperazines[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 2016 September 19 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 19 September 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:External link[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 2016 September 19 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 19 September 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:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant violation of Help:Hidden text by telling editors not to add an infobox when there is no existing policy against infoboxes. Editnotices are even more visible than hidden text, and should thus have even stricter guidelines on use. Pppery (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Hidden text is not a policy, but a help page. That said, where was the decision taken that the article should not have an infobox? Generally, an editnotice should have a consensus or policy to back it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It is, however, a proposed guideline which is linked as main article from a guideline. The RfC about making it a guideline seems to have general support. Pppery (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't a policy yet and I am wary of using not-yet ratified policies/guidlines as arguments for anything. That said, I presume Talk:Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery#Infobox is supposed to be the discussion that justifies the edit notice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contrary to WP:5P. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There have been edit wars over even keeping a hidden comment in the article text stating there's no consensus for an infobox yet. This edit notice was intended to get rid of the hidden comment. This went through A-class review and FA review without the addition of an infobox, and there's rather clearly no consensus to add one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery, which had the last full discussion related to the infobox issue. The still-in-progress/maybe-never-closed Talk:Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery#Infobox also doesn't appear to find consensus for an infobox. Because there's been edit warring related to infoboxes on this article, WP:EW justifies encouraging discussion over bold editing in this instance. One more bold edit will spark the next great infobox war; very few editors want that. ~ Rob13Talk 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but change the wording to something like "the lack of an infobox in this article is being discussed on the talk page". Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 10 September 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:1984 Summer Olympics men's football group B standings[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template based on deprecated templates, impossible to disambiguate the wrong link to Yugoslavia national under-23 football team The Banner talk 15:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:1984 Summer Olympics men's football group C standings The Banner talk 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep after fixing the links to point to the correct articles. used in more than one article, so why not use a template. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 9 September 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:Zawisza Bydgoszcz 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. Club plays in the 8th tier of Polish football after it went bankrupt in summer 2016. Kq-hit (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 9 September 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:Kolejarz Stróże 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. Club plays in the 6th tier of Polish football after it went bankrupt in summer 2014. Kq-hit (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 9 September 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:Flota Świnoujście 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. Club plays in the 6th tier of Polish football after it went bankrupt in summer 2015. Kq-hit (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 9 September 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:Dolcan Ząbki 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. Club plays in the 5th tier of Polish football after it went bankrupt in 2016. Kq-hit (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 9 September 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:Ruch Radzionków 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable players anymore. Club plays in the 5th tier of Polish football Kq-hit (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 9 September 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:Census in Australia[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) 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pointless template with no relevant article links. Australia only has a single article on its censuses with no likelihood that more will be created. The template can be created if enough articles are ever created but, for now, it serves no purpose. Category:Censuses in Australia is currently nominated for deletion for the same reason. AussieLegend (✉) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only two articles which already have links to each other (WP:NENAN) - Evad37 [talk] 03:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the articles already link to each other. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recreate if and when useable in more then just two places. Aoziwe (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a start to the creation of all eventual censuses, frankly the current census article of Australia has hardly any deep information on the detailed censuses for at least the 100 years of Australia. Everything has to start somewhere with people contributing all the time. The US censuses took awhile themselves, doesn't mean they are not article worthy. The current Census in Australia article is for skimming over only, tells you "nothing" about most of the detail. Many other contributors out there can take time and contribute if you cant.Faith16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this time it is useless. As you've noted, the current article doesn't have any detailed information about most of the censuses, and the article would need significant expansion before we could start splitting out articles for individual censuses. You've put the cart before the horse by creating this template. Navboxes are supposed to provide navigation between related articles, but there is only one article at this time. Other articles need to be created before the navbox. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this point in time as it is putting the cart before the horse.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:51, 11 September 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:Astro list redirect comment[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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor-facing content like this template does not belong on redirects. Pppery 02:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ...it does when you have editors unwittingly trying to (unsuccessfully) turn some of the ~20,000+ bot-created redirects into sub-stubs. Abides by WP:NASTRO; this template should only be subject to deletion if and only if WP:NASTRO is modified to its current contrary.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The displayed comment box helps to reduce controversy due to article creation right from the beginning, since many of these redirects were formerly deleted pages (see documentation). This practice has been proven useful in thousands of other astronomy-related hard redirects where visibility was never an issue. Note that the comment box is just a part of this template, and removing it would cause other problems. To me, a preliminary discussion on the template's talk page would have been more appropriate. Rfassbind – talk 17:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the See also section is another template for minor planets that accomplishes the same useful communication as this template does for astronomers who discover minor planets. The redirects are useful for searches, and while some of them might become articles someday, at least these notices inform editors to research very carefully before converting one of these redirects into an article. This information is at least as important as the categorization information that is found on hundreds of thousands of redirects – perhaps much moreso.  Paine  u/c 00:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No-policy based reason for deletion, and I don't see what is gained by deleting this except create more avoidable cleanup work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:38, 14 September 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:2012 AIHL Elite playoffs bracket[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 per prior consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no article on this league. ~ Rob13Talk 00:16, 9 September 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_September_9&oldid=1074850165"