Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22

[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 Template:Infobox Simpsons character into Template:Infobox character. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Simpsons character with Template:Infobox character.
At the very least should be a wrapper for Template:Infobox character Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 22 January 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).
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 Template:Infobox Doctor Who character into Template:Infobox character. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Doctor Who character with Template:Infobox character.
At the very least should be made into a custom wrapper for Template:Infobox character. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:07, 22 January 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).
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 Module:Listen. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Synthlisten with Template:Listen.
Modules have almost entirely the same functionality. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:31, 22 January 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).
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 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 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).
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 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 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).
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. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Wikipedia is not censored (Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link), and it's bordering on original research to have editors be determining what is and isn't safe for work in articles. Pretty glaring policy concerns here. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just to note I've purged all templates where NSFW was added - As far as I know this template has only been added to templates and not actual articles so the entries here should be gone in 2-3 hours (hopefully). –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Quicker than I thought! - Now only links to some database report and TFD/doc pages. –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 23 January 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).
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 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 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).
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 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 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).
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) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divine mercy (why all caps?) might be the most important thing in the universe besides love and the everpresent physical fabric of quantum strings, but it doesn't seem like the proper scope of a topic for a sidebar. Narrow topic sidebars seem to have limited usage and an misplaced promotion of notable names who have pioneered the topic. The all caps suggests branding, that is the branding of a theological idea that's supposed to be a concept and not a trademark.-Inowen (nlfte) 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh - this seems to have enough articles to justify the use of a sidebar, but Inowen makes a good point about its scope. I would say maybe change to a navbox, making it less prominent per the rationales laid out in WP:SIDEBAR? cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion the template is correct and should be kept as it stands at present. The devotion of "Divine Mercy" has sufficient international notoriety to justify the way the title is spelled and the internal connections that are associated. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template as it stands is adequate since - as Anjo-sozinho mentions - the Divine Mercy is a universally recognized subject, and is often featured as a prominent modern Catholic devotion. Additionally, the reputation that the subject matter has is warrant enough for its own template due to its expansive scope (which has increased over time), and the fact that the internal links themselves often justify the need for such a template. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 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).