Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 18 April 20 >

April 19[edit]

Template:Wikipedia ads[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep WP:SNOW and nominator is sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to convince people to do things via ads, it violates WP:NOTADVERTISING, because wikipedia is not an advertising platform by any means even with itself. I understand why people want to keep it, but still. Kirbyaddict99 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 03:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these are by and large opt-in templates place on editors own userpages themselves, or by related wikiprojects. This is not "advertising" and is not used to target readers of articles at all. — xaosflux Talk 18:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps these ads violate the letter of WP:NOTADVERTISING, but I certainly don't think they violate the spirit of it. I think the project would definitely be worse off for losing the RfA ad, for example. And WP:NOTADVERTISING does say "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." So even the policy itself admits that it is not completely black and white. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I don't see the harm in placing these on userpages, wikiprojects, etc. Sro23 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2018 (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:Dream Team[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) 15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Govvy who nominated this at MfD with the rationale:

With all the names being set to merge or redirect it makes this template redundant.

--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − 8 of the names do not redirect. Bogger (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the pages on the template currently redirect, except the list of characters page which has been nominated for deletion. The closure of the AfDs ended with a merge recommendation, so now all the pages redirect to the main article. I just redirected them (not merge, as I didn't see any content worth merging as it was all in-universe writing), but the history is still there if someone wanted to take any content and merge it across (but I don't see much value in that). --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (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:Hayatabad[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) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no navigable links. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A navbox without links serves no purpose....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, provides no navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2018 (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:Fb cl MLS team[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) 19:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old style, no need. same usage of Module:Sports table, should be replaced, and current MLS season use that module, not sure previous is Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: This is not about players. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, C&P error/not paying enough attention! GiantSnowman 06:50, 21 April 2018 (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).

Mass Fb cl templates[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 all but the H&A template which has no consensus. Please feel free to renominate that one if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old style, no need. Same usage of Module:Sports table, should be replaced, note that I can not tag some templates, because those template is template-protected Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Fb cl header H&A as it's used, see 2007–08 Football Conference. The first table on this Football Conference page was completely messed up by adding the 'page for deletion' box to the template page, so I've taken the liberty of removing the 'page for deletion' notice from this template's page in the hope that the Football Conference page reverts to its previously healthy state when the caching of the template page is next done (Is that how it works?) There are also lots and lots of other places this template would be very useful in tidying up that type of league table, but I've never got round to doing it... Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmitchell10: (Copy from previous TfD discussion) the point of TfD is to first determine if there is a consensus to eliminate the use of a template and if it is viable to replace it. It doesn't make sense to do numerous edits to convert all the tables if people don't want to convert all the tables - that's is why we have this discussion first. Then once a consensus is there the template is listed in WP:TFDH, where time is given - as much time as needed - for all instances to be removed. The templates are definitely not going to be deleted before the instances are removed. Unlike in other deletion discussions, this discussion ending in delete doesn't mean instant deletion. (origin from Galobtter) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, though, to please make sure to noinclude the deletion tag or select the don't show option in twinkle; as that is causing breakage Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for sorting out the display on the Football Conference page Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Mmitchell10. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all after replacing Unnecessary, the module should be used instead. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator As discussions above, I would like to keep about H&A, and still delete others. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fb cl header H&A should be deleted as well, this type of table should be discussed at WT:FOOTY first, as the standard table does not separate home and and away results. Either way, this could be deleted after merging into Module:Sports table if necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. But we need consensus first. Maybe we need a better solution about H&A templates in WT:FOOTY before renominating. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2018 (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:Fb a team[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Fb a team with Template:Fb a2 team.
same usage, but without relying on Fb team templates Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - what purpose do they serve?! GiantSnowman 18:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: So what is the replacement of {{Fb a2 team}}? I have no idea about this. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do the templates even do? GiantSnowman 06:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I know what you say. Thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As Fb team templates seem deprecated, fb a2 team must be the final template to use. Asturkian (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - revert to the standard wikicode and wikilinks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both unnecessary. Merge per Frietjes. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with {{Fb a team}}. if the tables are unnecessary, then remove them. however, the template does do some autocalculation of percentage changes. if there is a way to autocompute that (without duplicating the figures) then we could replace with that (i.e., similar to what is provided by {{Wins-losses-pct in table}}). Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2018 (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:Iron Chef Gauntlet 1[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 2018 April 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (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:DabprimaryExpand[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 2018 April 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (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:SIA-Conversion-Expand[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. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Set-index articles are very rare, and disambigs are almost never converted to set-indexes. Therefore, this template is a solution looking for a problem. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a maintenance-type / cleanup-type tag, used for a while in the past to mark disambiguation pages that should probably be converted to SIA pages. It was/can be useful for disambiguation-focused editors racing through the monthly disambiguation challenge to mark dabs for further thought. Sure, SIA pages are relatively rare, so what? It would be fine for a cleanup category to be entirely empty, we still keep such things. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, currently suggested are:
It is a decent suggestion for each of those, that the topics should be converted to Set Index Articles. --Doncram (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I would agree with Doncram. I don't think this falls under WP:BROKE, because there are articles where this template can be usefully applied, even if not many. That can easily change, though, say if someone decides to go through a whole bunch of disambiguation pages in their WikiProject and finds that several can be converted into SIAs. We don't delete templates that have a theoretical application just because they currently don't apply anywhere.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (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:Patronymic[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 2018 April 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2018 (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:NovelsWikiProject Collaboration[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 archive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really old template. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are so many really old templates that should also go then - in fact why not delete them all! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2018 (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:Haifaa al-Mansour[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) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unlinked articles; not enough linked article per WP:NENAN. -- AlexTW 10:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete, but should allow recreation when another one/two films are directed (and the articles are written). Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2018 (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:Jassper Flexx[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigational template that consists of three redlinks, two redlinks that were deleted last year and the third was never made into an article. Aspects (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2018 (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:Incomplete[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Let the DRV determine the fate of Template:Incomplete. WP:FORUMSHOPPING etc. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Incomplete with Template:Missing information.
These are essentially the same template with slightly-different wording: how is "this article is incomplete: the reason is X" different from "this article is missing information about X"? Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 00:33, 19 April 2018 (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/2018_April_19&oldid=875138367"