Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Module:Anchor, which has not been edited at all since it was created, really need two sandboxes? (especially since this one has only ever been used by a vanished user). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 13 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a tutorial on how to use standard modules such as Module:Arguments may be useful, this orphan example module clearly isn't absent any such tutorial. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 13 February 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).
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:Example. Clear consensus for a merge, going for Module:Example as the merge target as it was the most commonly cited one. Whether the other names should be redirected or just deleted I'll punt to whoever knows whether Module pages work as redirects, as it doesn't seem to be critical here. Also probably worth remembering that (the pages which have) links need to be changed/updated as appropriate, per the last comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:HelloWorld, Module:Bananas, Module:BananasArgs, Module:Example and Module:Basic example.
Is it really necessary to have five different "Hello, world"/test modules? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 13 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actual testcases; instead itself a test page, and no tests could be added here because there is no testable content. (As with my other testcases noms from a few days ago, I cannot tag the page) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 13 February 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).

Even more TV WP 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 merge to Template:WikiProject Television per the past (recent) consensus on a dozen similar task forces/subprojects as well as past precedent on task forces merging with their parent. As far as WPTV goes, other task force templates can be merged as found/needed. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Heroes with Template:WikiProject Television.
Found a few more templates that should be merged (the task forces are already supported by the template). Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 13 February 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).
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. kingboyk (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All cfd templates have now been converted to use Module:Cfd making this redundant and unused. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 16 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probable WP:COPYVIO per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is this linkspamming? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 13 February 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).
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 does not appear that opinions have changed much since the last time this was nominated for deletion. If someone wants to take ownership of this template and userfy it (to their userspace) there is no prejudice against that move (since it was suggested by multiple editors but a target not chosen). Primefac (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two translusions, both in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userification doesn't mean it's limited to just that user using it. User templates are cheap, so why not mothball it in storage? There's no consensus here to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors use templates from user space. I myself use a few:
This user has the knack.
xkcdThis user cannot go to bed when someone is wrong on the Internet.
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You both missed the point. This template isn't used by anyone. The creator did not ask for it to be userfied to their userspace. So to where exactly should this be userfied? --Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 21 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only four transclusions (one by a long-departed user). Encourages unhelpful, and non-standard behaviour. I suggest we subst and delete, to discourage further use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 13 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only five transclusions, mostly in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 February 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).
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. Substitute rather than replace because the replacement wasn't specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment per a note on my talk page: Substitute in the sense of replace with a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just 9 transclusions. Can and should be replaced by a simple redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 13 February 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).
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. kingboyk (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just 81 transclusions, mostly on the talk pages of long-departed editors, or in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 13 February 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).
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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 transclusions, some on the pages of indef-blocked editors. Unused. Redundant to the better-worded {{not around}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out this was created and edited by a since-blocked vandal, who applied it to other people's user pages, and whose work I have rolled back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 February 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).
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) 09:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just twelve transclusions, and a harmful interface variance, as explained here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harmful interface variance, or anything equivalent. It links to history pages rather to a "new section" form. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'll oppose the deletion. --Chriswaterguy talk 13:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. Please treat the example on the linked page as just that - an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 15 February 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).