Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Template:25 track listing[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) BethNaught (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedence with other templates like this for albums, it is redundant in place of {{Adele}} —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. All the songs with articles are included at {{Adele}} --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All but two are redirects anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (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:Clist eu judicial review[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. The deletion rationale is valid, but there is no point in deleting someone's hard work only to have them recreate it a few months later. New target will be {{User:Wikidea/Clist eu judicial review}}. When the articles have been created, it can be moved back to the template space (and can be re-TFD'd if necessary). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Navbox consisting totally of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Again, this is important, it will be expanded. Wikidea 12:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, articles first, then navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose once more - I should also refer users to my comments at the bottom of Talk:European Union law = I am expanding this page significantly, but it obviously takes time. So, please be patient. There's a case for expanding, not deleting. Wikidea 19:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator The post above is the second instance of an editor voting in this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 9 December 2015 (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:Clist eu executive[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. The deletion rationale is valid, but there is no point in deleting someone's hard work only to have them recreate it a few months later. New target will be {{User:Wikidea/Clist eu executive}}. When the articles have been created, it can be moved back to the template space (and can be re-TFD'd if necessary). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAVBOX that doesn't link to any cases and has just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose of course it's not finished. Wikidea 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, articles first, then navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again - as everyone can see, these templates are being used and expanded gradually. Really unsure what the nominator is thinking, but obviously wrong! Wikidea 13:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator The post above is the second instance of an editor voting in this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 9 December 2015 (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:Convert/text3[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 per consensus here and in line with precedent. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on only one page (apparently to prove a point). It is cumbersome. It is badly named (hiding in the subspace of another template). It violates MOSNUM. It appears to be a part of a single users pet project which nobody else is on board with (sorry, Wikid, but that's how it really does look). It's the big sister of another template for discussion the rationale for the deletion of which applies to this to the same degree. Jimp 07:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A one page template isn't doing anyone much good. What could it possible help readers find?   Bfpage |leave a message  20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: Over the years, some users have complained how the conversions after each amount in the text have been distracting in the format, "miles (km) miles (km) miles (km)", and so {convert/text3} combines all 3 conversions at the end of the 3 amounts in free-form text. For example:
       • {{convert/text3 |12|from Hampton,|20 |from Norfolk, and|62|mi|km|from Richmond west|out=,|out2=&|out3=west}}
          → 12 miles from Hampton, 20 mi from Norfolk, and 62 mi from Richmond west (19, 32 & 100 km west).
In general, there are many cases where a free-form text involves the conversion of 3 amounts, which could be automatically gathered together at the end of the text. This template {convert/text3} has been ideal to simplify pages with many conversions interleaved within the text. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimp: I would really propose to withdraw this TfD request and wait for the outcome of the other one. We don't want to discuss the same thing twice in parallel, and can't easily handle possibly diverging outcomes. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'd be fine with that. Jimp 13:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close then since nominator agrees. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: The nominator may not unilaterally withdraw the TfD nomination once other editors have voted to delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible admin can act, procedural. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the tfd for text2. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author. The Template:Convert/text3 has been used in several pages, but has been removed from many pages without consensus; {Convert/text3} was created over 2 years ago (October 2013), to solve the strong user complaint of too many conversions intermingled within article text, so it combines the 3 conversions at the end of the text to reduce the disruption within the free-form text. {Convert/text3} functions as a wp:wrapper template for {convert} and allows quick insertion of free-form text as multiple phrases, beyond the limits of {convert} as designed for ranges of numbers but not free-form text between numbers as in {convert/text3}. Over the past 2 years, the original doc-page was deleted/renamed without consensus, and so it was recreated to begin rewriting the help-text about the various parameters this month (November 2015). Removal, hacking and deletion of long-term templates and their documentation, over years, is a massive disruption causing many years of endless suffering, to thwart long-term progress of the experienced template editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not generally necessary to gain consensus to remove a template especially when it violates MOSNUM. Jimp 03:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't comment of course. Nor !vote. The issue is that no admin (m/f) has the understanding or balls to close the issue admin-ly. -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, the TfD process is fairly backlogged, and it's hard enough keeping up with the old unclosed TfDs, never mind the ones that might have been withdrawn/procedurally closed early. Insinuating that the admins are not "man enough" to close a discussion is incredibly UNCIVIL and unnecessary. We're all busy people, and heaven forbid a discussion not be closed early. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the consensus appears to be leaning towards delete, there were multiple requests to wait until the similar TfD was closed, which it now has been.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted this. See WP:CLOSURE on how to contest a closure. That TfD closed with 'deletion'. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this is just an extended version of {{convert/text2}}, whatever arguments to delete that template applies to this. The consensus was to delete {{convert/text2}} and the TFD was closed. This one likewise should be deleted. Jimp 20:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimps argumentation (also in the /text2 TfD already closed). -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2015 (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:Parent monthly clean-up category progress[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 relist to Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template seems to be to avoid a redlink on Template:Parent monthly clean-up category, but it causes a script error there instead, which is much worse. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps people shouldn't write Lua scripts that break things that were working? I'll look at this presently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    It never actually worked. The only thing that Lua changed is that it puts things that don't work in an error category, whereas errors in wikitext generally don't get categorized. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was snippy. Template:Parent_monthly_clean-up_category/sandbox .. yes it did work...
  • Keep fixed using an example. Template can now display what it looks like, without any unnecessary overhead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - this template is only used on eight pages.  Bfpage |leave a message  20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The technical issue has been fixed, hence the relisting to garner a consensus on the (working) template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2015 (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:University of Northern Colorado[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 to Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template with 4 links, one of which is the athletic conference the school is in. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It took me some time to sort out where your nomination ended and where your signature began. What are you proposing should be done about this template and what is the rationale for your proposed action? Thincat (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (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:New England sports[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 to Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates sports teams by state templates. All 6 New England states have their own template. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (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:Clean up categories from year[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not really useful template. The two boxes on the right are not correct (and in general the "use language X" templates should not be in "clean up categories anyway), especially the bottom one is useless. The intention was probably to replace the text on cats like Category:Clean up categories from 2015 (so could be used on at most 10 pages or so), but as that one isn't correct either, it makes little sense to use this template instead. Fram (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, the "Older Clean up categories" and "Clean up categories" boxes on the right should be consolidated into a single box. Yes, there is a bug here, introduced with the conversion of the logic for creating the "Clean up categories" box to Lua – see Template talk:Progress box#Lua version not including subcategories. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a used template; it's transcluded into:
While it's not strictly necessary, as the edits which were made to use it, such as this edit, could be reverted, it's useful in that it consolidates identical code used in 13 pages into a single page, to ensure uniformity of presentation, and allow a change made to this single page to be propagated to all 13 years, saving the need to edit all 13 pages. Whether it's useful from a maintenance standpoint, well it might be considered more useful if we actually had more worker bees clearing this backlog. The two boxes on the right are now corrected and consolidated into a single box, as Template:Progress box old has been updated. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2015 (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/2015_December_4&oldid=1141875873"