Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 19

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

September 19[edit]

Template:X2 review help[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 Moved without redirect to User:User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Template:X2 review help with comment "Move back to original sandbox location for use in possible future translation projects, as a result of [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_19#Template:X2_review_help|this Tfd]]." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, associated with deprecated criterion X2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Huh, guess I missed one. In my defense it doesn't have links to or from the actual CSD criteria, the main CXT page or any of the other pages deleted in the cleanup. --Trialpears (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved – returned to its original sandbox location, for possible reuse in translation projects. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: You moved it to a title with a double namespace prefix. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Oops, thanks for the heads-up! Also, I didn't include a redirect, because I didn't think anyone would inlink to it, but I checked, and there are inlinks, although mostly archives and places that don't seem to matter; should I put the redirect back, or what happens when a Template is deleted, normally? Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's standard not to leave a redirect when userfying templates; leaving a redirect defeats the point of the userfication entirely. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 20 September 2020 (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).

Module:Jctint/AUS[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the module's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent failed test from 2016. Needs a rename to a title that is not a subpage of a non-existent page if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 19 September 2020 (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).

Module:IndianPremierLeague/GroupStageTable[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Needs a rename to a title that is not a subpage of a non-existent page if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 19 September 2020 (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:Tunisian presidential election, 1999[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template as 1999 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2020 (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:Tunisian parliamentary election, 2009[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2009 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (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:Tunisian presidential election, 2009[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. Soft delete based on minimal participation. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2009 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2020 (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:Mauritanian presidential election, 2009[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2009 Mauritanian presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2020 (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:Mali presidential election, 2007[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2007 Malian presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2020 (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:Senegalese presidential election, 2007[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2007 Senegalese presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2020 (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:Tunisian presidential election, 2004[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2004 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2020 (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:Hominin[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 2020 September 27. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (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).

Sydney Trains 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. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Sydney Trains. Fleet Lists (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thank you for working through those. Cards84664 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep {{Sydney Trains color}} as it has older colour sets for Sydney Train lines, Delete everything else.
BTW you should update Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations with new guidance. Techie3 (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The old colours are now available in Template:TFNSW lines so it does not need to be kept. Yes will update the guide lines.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps subst/replace usages on all those talk pages, so their context isn't lost? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have updated the talk page concerned to show that the issue has since been resolved. So can not see any reason for keeping the information.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2020 (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:Di-disputed fair use rationale[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 Withdrawn by me. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the template can't be deleted, then it should be deprecated instead. Whether the template is often or rarely used is not the main concern. My main concern is the template itself, now that we have PROD extended to files since 2017.

While PROD and dfu have similar purposes, they also function differently. PROD can allow uploaders to remove the tag itself, but dfu as-is does not. Furthermore, dfu can be potentially abused (if not misused). Imagine a file being PRODded, de-PRODded, and finally dfu-ed (possibly a loophole?). Dfu requires hassle(s) in order to have the tag removed, like resolving issues that a tagger raises and communication with the one who placed the dfu. PROD, however, can be removed by anyone without any other hassle, and reinserting the PROD tag in the same page is disallowed.

I'm not well convinced that dfu is a better alternative to PROD and WP:FFD. I have either rarely or stopped using the dfu tag since the implementation of File PROD in 2017 for the reasons above. Others still using the dfu tag have been apparently reluctant to use File PROD for primarily their mistrust toward the way File PROD functions, but I still don't know why they still want to prevent uploaders from simply removing the dfu as one of methods to contest the deletion proposal.

Dfu is still part of WP:F7, especially since the discussion I made earlier this year very few people, less than what I hoped for. Moreover, changes to the dfu tag were suggested, but the suggestions didn't receive much support. Furthermore, seven days seems longer than what CSD normally intends, but I guess I can say the same for {{npd}}, {{nsd}}, and a few or several others under CSD. Other criteria for speedy deletion can make files deleted at rushed pace, on the other hand.

The previous nomination in 2009 failed, by the way, but that was before PROD 2017 extension to files, and the deletion rationale was different. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This is for when the fair use rationale is questionable. I think this template still has use as is. And I think file PRODs are for non-copyright issues (like file accuracy). This template is for when a file is being used in a "fair use" scenario that is not really fair use (such as a screenshot of Fortnite being used in the article "video games") or when there may be a free replacement, but one has not been found yet. This is different from {{di-replaceable fair use}} in which there is a free replacement found or that can be created. Also, I am pretty sure template-related discussions when there are policies attached to them do not belong at TfD but at the relevant policy talk page. Aasim (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File PRODs also apply to "fair use" disputes. But thanks for the heads up about policy-based templates. Deciding to withdraw the nomination for now. --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (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/2020_September_19&oldid=980723065"