Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

edit

Template:Video game release/sort

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) Primefac (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, abandoned template. Formerly used by Video game release, but now replaced. Lordtobi (✉) 22:28, 24 December 2016 (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:Other languages

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) Primefac (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

This template will be a year old next week. It isn't used anywhere, and its use seems to contemplate a situation where a page in the English wiki will have alternative language versions under a common title, each suffice by /xx where xx is a two-letter code for a language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service

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 2017 January 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 329th ID

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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 3

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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when I view the template, I notice it was much larger before this edit practically deleted all of the links. Dapi89 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these were red links, the rest were redirected to a list: 2015 version, leaving two which are articles. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the PLD

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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 15th Waffen GD

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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 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 delete. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template was much larger before this edit. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many were red links, the rest were redirected to a list 2014 version, leaving one entry that is an article. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 320th ID

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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Life ki aisi ki taisi

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. Cack-handedness by self-promoter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a movie Life Ki Aisi Ki Taisi Marvellous Spider-Man 17:10, 24 December 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:RFDNote-NPF

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. It appears that this template (along with others) are part of a family of NPF templates that might still be relevant. I suggest starting a discussion about their future (merge/delete all/etc). Primefac (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to tag this template with {{Db-t3}} since the function it serves is duplicative of {{RFDNote}}, in addition to the template seemingly being unused. However, this template was created by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm not sure what is going on since it may be used in a way I don't see and I don't want to break anything. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewed the template's documentation. Is this template still hardcoded into the New Pages Feed? I can't tell since I don't see any obvious connections to this template and any "MediaWiki:" namespace pages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is used & subst'd via https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-PageTriage/blob/0aa029dc2dd1e1d618b2b5c4333e08d2876366d2/modules/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions.js#L319 - So, keep and amend docs (partially done). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and amend whatever is using this to use the standard {{RFDNote}} rather than forking its own duplicate. Pppery 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 33 other -NPF templates, all of which are similarly redundant. Pppery 13:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, looks like this is functionally equivalent to {{RFDNote}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quiddity (WMF), is this template still actively being used in the New Page feed? Primefac (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac it is still the target in the code (per above), but a quick search suggests that it hasn't actually been used since 2013. (Versus some of the other -NPF variants, which are in regular/daily use).
    • However, and in reply to comments about redundancy, whilst the -NPF templates may be functionally identical, they differ quite a lot in nuance of language used. They were specifically written to be more personal (from "I") and with a bit of friendliness ("Hello"), and with a more informal and potentially understandable (less wikispeak) explanation of how the recipient can particpate (compare Template:AfD-notice-NPF and Template:Afd notice, for example). Hence, I'd gently object to deletion on 'redundancy' grounds (with both volunteer and staff hat!). (Addendum: Ideally we'd merge them, but that will/would require a lot of time to discuss/debate all the differences, and investigate any available data on whether one variant helped with editor-retention over the other. Hopefully that will happen over the long term.) Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2017 (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:Trump family

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. The general consensus is to trim down the family content in {{Donald Trump}} instead. The specifics of that trimming should be held at that template's talk page. NPASR should the talk page discussion decide that {{Trump family}} should actually be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is already included at {{Donald Trump}}, I see no need for a separate template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that would send us back to the pre-election situation: a yuuuge unmanageable navbox (to which now the developing presidency articles should be added). See how it looked and weep: Old revision of Template:Trump. Collapsible sections wouldn't make it any more palatable. I strongly oppose this idea. — JFG talk 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, just sticking to this template (discussion drift my fault), the complete list is also included in the 'Family' section on the {{Donald Trump}} template. This section, either included or welcome on major individual templates, is a part of all US presidential templates. So just referring to the template under discussion, there really is no need for it. Randy Kryn 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: We heard you. It doesn't help your case to restate your argument as an answer to every Keep supporter. — JFG talk 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly it needs to be repeated many times, as there are now two editors below who also think the family section should be 'trimmed' from the main template, thus making it the only exception I know of on individual templates. I've seen closers close these type of discussions in under a minute, thus not all closers study the questions raised and site consistency. There is really no need for this template, and if it is closed as 'Keep' certainly the section would stay on the main template if template consistency has any meaning here. Randy Kryn 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (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:Norse exploration of the Americas

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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Norse exploration of the Americas with Template:NorseAmerica.
duplicate purpose Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (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:Fool-scale discussion

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 userfy per request. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used three times (can be subst'd there). This is redundant with various other talk page banner templates in the "be civil and keep cool" vein. This one has a flippantly chiding, WP:BITEy tone that shows its age (2007). As humor, it's not really funny, and it sends the wrong message (that the discussion itself is foolish).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 24 December 2016 (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:Shared IP 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 2017 January 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_24&oldid=1138533067"