Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Template:Gustave Charpentier operas[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gustave Charpentier operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sidebar-style navbox, with only two links. Fails WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – complies with WP:ANOEP. There were 7 "Keep" !votes in a previous discussion for this template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 30#Two or three entry opera sidebar templates; the one dissenting voice lacked any understanding of navigation boxes. A notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera might widen the discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ANOEP requires "usefulness", and that navboxes have "at least several" links. In each of the articles where this is used the navbox has only one link, which is just as easily worked into prose as "Charpentier's [subsequent|previous] opera, Foo...". The 2012 debate concerned a large number of such templates, so this one was not specifically discussed, Your rationale for keeping them in that debate, was "high functional and navigational value and expansion possibility". That does not apply here. Others commented likewise "virtually all of these composers have written more than three opera" and "many of these templates also have the possibility of expansion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With only one or two links, I'm sure that we can come up with a couple of nice info-boxes which will give a much feeling for the specific opera is about. Mr. C.'s pic can be included in the article, of course.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Viva-Verdi —PC -XT + 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 2 links and per Viva-Verdi. Snappy (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Quoted[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quoted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used 2 times in article namespace and doesn't match any of the other block quote templates in style etc. Survived a May 2005 TfD, but apparently hasn't really seem to have taken off since. Suggest replacing with {{quote}} and then deleting, avoiding further confusion for users. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is using the WikiQuote icon, which is clearly inappropriate, as it doesn't link to a WikiQuote page, so any blue links are misleading. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as redundant to other templates —PC -XT + 07:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Quoter[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quoter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is just an alias for {{quote}}, we don't really need this. Only 17 uses in articlenamespace —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all this does is swap around parameters 1 and 2 -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant —PC -XT + 06:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Snappy (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge to {{PD-author}}, like Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_17#Template:PD-release. It is somewhat same as {{PD-release}}. GZWDer (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different terms. {{PD-author}} puts works in the public domain in the United States (but not in other countries). {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} doesn't put anything in the public domain anywhere at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not Public Domain per Stefan -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stefan, as this is not redundant —PC -XT + 07:39, 1 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Dáil Éireann[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dáil Éireann (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to Template:Infobox legislative session, overly specialised version of same. I have already modified Infobox legislative session to accommodate it, and it can be further modified if needed. Infobox Dáil Éireann is no longer used. Snappy (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant —PC -XT + 04:57, 6 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Major temples in West Bengal[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major temples in West Bengal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hindu temples in West Bengal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Major temples in West Bengal with Template:Hindu temples in West Bengal.
as both are about the same topic. I am the editor who has asked for merging of the two templates. However, Template:Major temples in West Bengal has additional information under the "Centres" heading. This information should not be lost in the merging process. I would request users User:Thaejas, User:Jonoikobangali, User:Amartyabag, User:BengaliHindu, User:Sidsahu, User:Chandan Guha, User:P.K.Niyogi and many other editors who have contributed to both templates to please put forward their views. AkhilKumarPal (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the merger makes sense Sidsahu (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Template:Hindu temples in West Bengal BengaliHindu (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talkback[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The fourth time which brings this template for a TfD. However, comparing to the last three attempts which brings the reason of nonsense or something, the environment of Wikipedia has changed by a new function - Notification. When a message was left on a user's talkpage, a notification will be automatically left to the target user, largely reducing the demand of this template. Also, notification would reduce the area of the database of backup history produce by this template. As a result, it will be turned into an orphan template. I can't find any reason to support the present of this template due to the environment change. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 08:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - As explained on the talk page, talkback also serves IPs, which cannot have notifications. Also, the template is transcluded 50,000+ times, mostly on archive talk pages; that alone necessitates retaining the template. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{Reply to}} is often irritating and used when notification is unnecessary. This template provides a convenient notification method when the user might not be watching a page. {{Reply to}} also doesn't work with IPs, and this template is currently heavily used. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep , per Edokter, and it shouldn't take up that much space in backups. Further, you can't notify a WikiProject with notifications. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this template provides evidence that the notification was at least delivered. I have found attempted notifications via my watchlist that I never received, and I advise users to give me a talkback if I haven't responded to a notification, but there is no way to tell if a notification was actually sent without asking the user. Also, users may turn them off. —PC -XT + 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Edokter .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people have difficulty getting notifications to work - this is unsurprising given the number of criteria which must be satisfied simultaneously (if your post fails to send a notification, you can't go back and adjust), and feel much more confident with {{talkback}} --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.