Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10[edit]

Template:Uw-defamatory1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this series of templates. We already have a {{uw-biog}} for users who violate WP:BLP. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The {{uw-biog}} set of templates is specific with respect to not adding reliable sourcing with respect to living people, while the {{uw-defamatory}} series can also be about libel/defamation of corporate entities and dead people. It's much more flexible, and the two are not redundant as assumed by someone who's wrong on the internet. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. —Alalch E. 20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly within your rights to say that in your opinion, an edit is defamatory. You are talking about the edit, not the user. CapnZapp (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a distinct difference in usage that the nominator doesn't address and conflates with BLP. SilverserenC 19:27, 12 March 2023 (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:Pre-Roman peoples in Spain[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Pre-Roman peoples in Iberia. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Pre-Roman peoples in Spain with Template:Pre-Roman peoples in Portugal.
Consistency with Prehistoric Iberia (see previous talk over this when merging prehistoric Spain and prehistoric Portugal to prehistoric Iberia). They should be merged into Pre-Roman peoples in Iberia. Irecorsan (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (consistency; old consensus to merge the prehistoric templates because "There was no Spain in prehistoric times. There was no Portugal either"). —Alalch E. 19:10, 12 March 2023 (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:Inactive Gold Mines in Western Australia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant, all gold mines in Western Australia, active or inactive, are now listed under Template:Gold Mines in Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics football 7-a-side team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics football 5-a-side team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics volleyball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair basketball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics wheelchair basketball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (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:2016 Summer Paralympics Sweden wheelchair rugby team roster[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics goalball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Paralympics goalball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Olympics field hockey team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Olympics handball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Olympics basketball team roster templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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/2023_March_10&oldid=1145314447"