Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Dutch football 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no longer needed after being merged with the articles (with attribution). See this thread at WT:FOOTY. --Sb008 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 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:List of rivers of Tajikistan[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article (redlink). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and use - the template has enough links for a valid nav template and there are other country river nav templates. --Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use - Has 14 rivers, so enough to use now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors support using it, but currently it still has no transclusions in articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use per above. A topic worthy of a navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many other such templates exist, some of which I created or expanded. Strong keep for all of them, not just this one.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 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:Warning antisemitism Arabs[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. NPASR if a different reason is provided. Primefac (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very few transclusions, doubtful its useful outside of those pages. Can be substituted and deleted. funplussmart (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Does not meet WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions does not mean no transclusions, and it's quite useful on pages where the etymological fallacy is constantly being raised. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 2 April 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:GNF Protein box[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, subst/orphan and redirect to Template:Infobox gene. Consensus seems to support that this template needs to go, but there is some disagreement on how to accomplish this. Some people are concerned about old revisions or the existing transclusions, others are not concerned or think that substing would resolve the problem or that it's not a problem at all. My sense is that there isn't a consensus on this, so this is a consensus for a merger only (subst to deal with existing uses, redirect for attribution & "old revision" issues); if there is still discussion needed on the usefulness of the resulting redirect it can be had at WP:RFD which is the normal place for redirect discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:GNF Protein box with Template:Infobox gene.
This template has been marked as deprecated and replaced by {{Infobox gene}} (which is used for proteins also) since august 2018 and has only 11 article transclusions left (and around 70 non-article ones). Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions != no transclusions. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're just saying "I cant be bothered to find a reason so read that section and pick something"? Because if that is the case, then #2 The template is redundant to a better-designed template is exactly my point. --Gonnym (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The template should be kept for historical reasons (it is transcluded in several talk page discussions). Boghog (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst & delete No reason at all to keep this template. Its use on talk pages should have been substituted from the beginning. There is no reason to have a centralized template to update all these. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst & delete Per Zackmann08. Article ones should be replaced with Wikidata entries. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and redirect/merge per be all above rationales for deleting. The only reason I am saying redirect over delete is that the page history must be preserved for attribution if the template is merged. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete the protein box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, orphan, and redirect. I agree that forcible end-of-use is good here, but I don't quite get the point of deleting old templates, since deletion breaks old revisions. Just convert it into a redirect after orphaning; there won't be any maintenance needed unless someone recreates it, and the only maintenance needed then will be reversion and perhaps protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument could used for 100% of the articles being deleted, yet it isn't used and they all get deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morphar per User talk:Nyttend, and because it salts the namespace in a user friendly way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:59, 13 May 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:Odia language[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links are red, so it's probably WP:TOOSOON to have this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, make it a collapsed bottom navbox per uanfala. --Artoria2e5 🌉 20:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've converted the template into a bottom navbox, tidied it up and added it to articles. – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; template now has ten good blue links, each of which goes to a separate and highly relevant article. The nomination makes sense when you consider what it looked like when Kbb2 found it, but I don't envision the nominator nominating the current version of the template. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 3 May 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:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds[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 2019 April 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 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:MAGA[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is no place for politicking, even if it looks like the original intention was to make MAGA-ites categorise as "deplorable". There's a long-standing presumption against classifying users by politics. Le Deluge (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not an appropriate userbox and has potential to be quite divisive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:14, 30 March 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:WikiProject Free and open-source software[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 to Template:WikiProject Computing. Pinging @Newslinger who offered to implement the switchover for the articles. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Free and open-source software with Template:WikiProject Computing.
After a December 2018 requested move, WikiProject Free and open-source software was converted into the free and open-source task force. As the project is a task force (and not a WikiProject), its former WikiProject banner should be merged into the top-level WikiProject's banner, {{WikiProject Computing}}. (While the task force is directly under WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing is the top-level project for both.)

No changes are needed to {{WikiProject Computing}}, but all talk pages using {{WikiProject Free and open-source software}} should switch to the {{WikiProject Computing}} template. If the talk page already uses {{WikiProject Computing}}, the template should have the free-software and free-software-importance parameters set. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle but what's the plan for the 2715 pages affected by this proposed change? ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The affected talk pages can be migrated over to {{WikiProject Computing}} with the assistance of AutoWikiBrowser or JavaScript Wiki Browser. (The articles can also be re-rated for quality and importance at the same time.) I'm willing to take on this task, and any interested editors are certainly welcome to join me. — Newslinger talk 01:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newslinger: Seems like it would be an easier workflow and non-controversial merge if this work were done before merging/deleting the template. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I wasn't sure if there was consensus to merge, but this appears to be less controversial than I had expected. The template won't be redirected until the talk pages are migrated over. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If projects where merged/converted into taskforce, the WP template should follow suit. The above proposal of how-to is very reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 16 April 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:Gibraltar Football League[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 redirect to Template:Gibraltar Premier Division. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and very out of date navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the usefulness of a merge would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 30 March 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:Delhi–Chennai line[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail line map Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep - The template was there on the New Delhi-Chennai main line page. One editor had deleted it. I have restored it on that page and also added it on two other pages. Please do not delete the template. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is now used.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 30 March 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:Governors of the Central Bank of Kenya[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) DannyS712 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 30 March 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:Basketball in Israel[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 2019 April 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 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:Form factors[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 2019 May 19. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 19 May 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_30&oldid=897967732"