Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29

Template:Section23 Films

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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section23 Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a single relevant link that is already featured on the main article. No need for this template to exist in the first place. Jotamide (talk) 22:57, 29 July 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:Persondata

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 CSD-G7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles with Persondata template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The persondata system is no longer in use on any articles, so this template can only appear if someone adds it to in article, which seeing a redlinked template should discourage just as much as this warning box. Secondly, this template produces no output in draft space, which could result in persondata templates being undetected until the draft is accepted and moved to mainspace. Pppery (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ there have been reported of editors adding the template, with data, to new articles. The template as it now exists issues a warning to such editors that it should not be used, but that the data should instead be placed in Wikidata (a warning similar in style to that used by {{Official website}}, and one not suggested by a mere red link). It also emits a tracking category. If desired, it can be made to appear in draft namespace also (though I would expect AfC reviews to be removing it if used there). The old TfD is irrelevant, as this template is substantially different. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that the previous TfD was for a functionally different template, but I added the {{oldtfdlist}} template because that is what is generally done when one makes a second nomination of a template. In any case, I disagree that the old discussion is irrelevant. In fact, the outcome of having a template that issued an error was suggested by multiple users (which you weren't one of), and such a template wasn't the result of the close. Also, how does a redlinked template not suggest that it shouldn't be used. Pppery (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this template is kept, it might make sense to undelete the revisions deleted by the earlier tfd. Pppery (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be no point - nor sense - in doing so, whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've added Special:AbuseFilter/783 to combat readditions instead. Max Semenik (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That contains no advice to use Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Max Semenik (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - A couple other things we may want to think about: The filter doesn't appear to work in preview, so we should either WP:SALT this template or watch it for accidental recreations. Also, I don't know how much use the redirects had before removal started or the likelihood of someone trying to use them, now, but there is currently no provision for this besides a red link. —PC-XT+ 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. In the light of this change, Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concern was that a redlinked template isn't helpful for an editor. There should be some explanation about where the data now goes. MaxSem's filter accomplishes that, so I'm satisfied. clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning suggests that we should keep the template, as it replaces a red link with a warning message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've checked the filter and it works fine. --Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per author. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 2 August 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:Routemap/i18n

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routemap/i18n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, should be moved to userspace or deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 2 August 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:Disneyland Resort Line

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 withdrawn by nominator. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disneyland Resort Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Functional duplicate of {{HK-MTR route/Disneyland Resort}}. In any case, this probably shouldn't be in the (only) article containing it – Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts^[a] – since it's not actually part of the Disneyland Resort but part of the MTR network. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Disneyland Resort Line has two different route diagrams because the line overlaps two different contexts: an MTR context and a Disney Parks context. Although the Disneyland Resort Line is not run by Disney, it does enter the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort property, which makes it a component of the resort. The MTR-specific template is satisfactory when comparing it to the other MTR templates, but not when comparing it to the other Disney Parks templates. For instance, on the MTR templates, lines marked as blue are light rail and heavy rail rapid transit lines with all other heavy rail lines marked as red (the Disneyland Resort Line is a rapid transit line); however, in regards to the Disney Parks templates, all of them are light rail and marked as blue except for the Disneyland Resort Line, which is the only heavy rail line among them and also the only one with a direct connection to an external rail network. Hence, that difference needs to be noted by having its line marked as red. Also, it is assumed that all MTR stations are handicap accessible and hence are not marked accordingly on their route diagrams; however, not all stations on Disney Parks lines are handicap accessible. Hence, the Disney Park stations that are handicap accessible need to be marked as such. Lastly, on the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article, all of the Disney Parks route diagrams are listed with the template header for each one displayed. When the MTR version of the Disneyland Resort Line route diagram was in place in the article, its template header was absent, as that is the way it was meant to be displayed in the Disneyland Resort Line article; however, the Disney Parks version of the route diagram does include the template header. Ultimately, the whole point of having the Disney Parks version of the Disneyland Resort Line route diagram is to accurately compare and contrast it with the other Disney Parks route diagrams, and the MTR version is not suitable for that purpose. Jackdude101 (Talk) 14:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Thank you for your comprehensive essay. I will be withdrawing this nomination, although I strongly suggest converting the diagram to be {{Routemap}}-based, as the {{Railway line header}}/{{BS-table}} combination was deprecated in 2011. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Which should be renamed back to "Rail transport in Disney Parks and Resorts", a more sensible title. But I digress.

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:Question Time

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Question Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's against consensus to include cast and crew for TV series navboxes. In addition to this, the "most appearances" section fails to consider what a WP:NAVBOX should be for (it could be dealt with on a list article or the main article however). That leaves just 3 usable links. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't think it passes the WP:NAVBOX test "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles". I doubt this navbox is truly useful, and it would be better to put the interesting info in the Question Time article, or some subsidiary artcle. Rwendland (talk) 14:21, 31 July 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).

[1] Which should be renamed back to "Rail transport in Disney Parks and Resorts", a more sensible title. But I digress.

[a]