Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1

[edit]

Template:Ontario Tertiary and 7000 Highways

[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 2018 October 8. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (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:Show file signature

[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. AGK ■ 21:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single use templates like this one are generally discouraged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know about policy, but converting hexadecimal byte representations to the UTF-8 encoding of the ISO 8859-1 characters for those bytes is quite tedious and there's no assurance it's correct when done manually. It was because I noticed that at least one of the conversions was wrong that I created the module and template. That seemed a better solution than painstakingly copying characters from a code page, as using {{convert}} is better than using a calculator. But yes, there's only one page that this template and module is used on, and I didn't convert all the rows in the table to use it. — Eru·tuon 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:21, 2 October 2018 (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:SLMPD Police Commissioner

[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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template of redlinks is of little value as a navigational tool to the users of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (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:2TeamBracket-MMA

[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (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).

ECHL coaches navigational boxes

[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. AGK ■ 21:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NHL project takes minimal approach regarding navigational boxes. Also propose deleting Category:ECHL coaches navigational boxes as that is where the templates are placed. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (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:2018 Asian Games men's kabaddi game B1

[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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template - relevant information is at Kabaddi at the 2018 Asian Games – Men. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2018 (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:2018 Asian Games women's handball game QF1

[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 All deleted— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unused with no information whatsoever. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more - more to come in a couple of minutes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2018 (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:2018 Asian Games women's kabaddi game A3

[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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template - relevant information has already been placed at Kabaddi at the 2018 Asian Games – Women. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkbwcgs: Ya I think it is okay to delete this template, but not all of the templates similar to it, as the ones involving India has been used at the page India at the 2018 Asian Games and likewise others may also have been used.--Anbans 585 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and revert some of these edits We should use templates in IOC and Asian games. But not sure why Mohsen1248 substed these templates? Hhkohh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asian Games doesn't have the same importance as the Olympics. specially for a non-Olympic sport like Kabaddi, I really don't think we need one template for every single match in every single sports. beside that these templates don't include any kind of detailed results. I only can see the final result here. what's the point of using templates when they are used only in one article and they don't make the article smaller. Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep content in single-use templates when the content could be put in the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2018 (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:UFC FX prelim header

[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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2018 (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:ZG sanctions

[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. I think this template can safely be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement have been revoked so this template is now obsolete. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:49, 1 October 2018 (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:Sam Levinson

[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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only two entries. Not enough to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 09:36, 1 October 2018 (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:2018 European Athletics Championships Schedule

[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. Consensus is to substitute and delete these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per previous Izno (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge with articles and delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retaining the information is relevant. It is not obsolete. Bad precedent cited. We should retain the information. Trackinfo (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • no one is saying the information should be deleted. the proposal is the merge the information with the article since there is no need to keep the information in a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This commenter has been corrected in his opinion that the information is being destroyed at the Sep 21 and Sep 20 discussions. Closer should consider those also. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not speak for me. I have not changed my opinion. You might be honorable, but in the wrong hands (and there are a lot of malicious deletionists out there) subst is a potentially flawed system because there is no tracking of the history of a destroyed template. You have not answered that argument, so I am not convinced this action needs to be taken and worse yet a precedent established. Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not speak for you nor did I suggest that your opinion was changed. I only corrected your statement that the information will be deleted or lost somehow. I see no reason to track the history of the template in any meaningful sense that won't also be done in the article's page going forward. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the three sections below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2018 (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:2015 World Championships in Athletics Schedule

[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. Consensus to merge these templates into the respective articles and then delete. I have endeavoured to provide some basic attribution of the main author of each template. If Pelmeen10 wishes to enact their suggestion, then please discuss at my talk page; I will not stand in the way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This shows the schedule of the major event, broken down. This is not obsolete information. Sometimes there are relevant details associated with when an event occurred; on what day, morning or afternoon. That is why we keep information. In similar TfDs you have already destroyed that information with no apparent means for retrieval. You have essentially destroyed that information from public use. Yes there other sources that can be found, usually. The more obscure the event you obliterate, the harder it is to find, thus the Asian Games template, from an event that only occurred in the last few weeks will be harder to find in the future. most continental championship information disappears within a few years because the local organizing committee tires of hosting a website after the event happened. I urge retention of information and restoration of the similar schedule templates you have previously, stupidly destroyed by holding these discussions in near secrecy. And most importantly, in addition to seeking a better volume of commenters, you should have people comment who know something about the subject. Trackinfo (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Raymarcbadz: Here are more schedule templates stupidly deleted on a consensus of 2 people.
  • Pretty much the entire contents of Category:Sports schedule templates is under attack, or has already been deleted. How much content has already been destroyed? Trackinfo (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trackinfo: None of it. Please review the consensus regarding each of those templates, which was to WP:Subst and then delete the templates. You will find the contents of these at their respective articles e.g. 2012 European Athletics Championships. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't argue about consensus, in most that I have seen you had two people respond. This is a horribly corrupt process in the absence of comment. My efforts to improve notifications and increase comment have so far been ignored or even resisted. My 11 year history has shown most merge situations are malicious functions to delete content. In this case, I have looked at the articles and it looks like the subst has faithfully transferred the content. I can't make that as a definitive statement. The issue is, it always is, to preserve what we already know. We had it, it was working. Why risk it to more hands to potentially destroy it? With the templates destroyed, there is no means to cross reference and fix malicious tampering. The history is gone, preserved for only the view of the elite, who are more equal than others, and are too busy to be bothered checking details. I'll accept your subst as an alternative, though I am not convinced. I'm not chasing my !vote. It would be far better not to tamper with what already exists and is working. Trackinfo (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't argue about consensus? I just pointed you to where "subst" was the conclusion, which preserves the template content. The purpose of templates is for non-article content to be used on multiple pages. TFD routinely substs and deletes single-use templates, especially where they are otherwise normal page content. As for a point of your original complaint, this material should not be only published on Wikipedia. (The current tables are questionable from a WP:TVGUIDE perspective, but I'm not interested in deleting them here.) If you are concerned about the current references, the references need to be archived (run Internet Archive Bot on these pages). --Izno (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Clearly this kind of calendar is not "used for internal organization" or "repositories of loosely associated topics". If we delete this kind of calendar definitely there would be many complaints from IP users. Hddty. (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some of the recent templates have had precise times of airing. That clearly falls in the NOTTVGUIDE well. If you have an issue with that policy, WT:NOT is where you should go. As for IPs complaining, I am sure that we have many pages where IP users complain about their treatment, because they try to include, or want included, some content which Wikipedia does not publish. These pages are not special in that regard. The only reason I haven't pursued deletion of these globs of information is because I'm not interested in actually deleting them. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the specific section of interest is item 4 at section "Wikipedia is not a directory": Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. [snip] --Izno (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For me those templates are simply useful and per WP:IAR. Hddty. (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge content with the articles and delete the templates per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment deleting in not the only option, as Trackinfo brought out the issue - to maintain the history, each template should become redirect and template {{merged-from}} added to the talk page in every case. So probably these templates should be restored? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for understanding. Its a slippery slope we are building; establishing a precedent based on the consensus of two editors, we are deleting a bunch of templates and the content's history in order to do a simple clean up. Its not so simple. These substs are probably fine, I have no reason to distrust Izno. But establishing the precedent is dangerous. The foregone conclusion aspect of these changes lets our guard down. There are malicious editors who spend the majority of their editing time trying to destroy or censor wikipedia content to suit their own vision of what the world can know. There are maybe 30 of them. I could name names, but WP:CIVIL then I'd be the bad guy. If you give these lowlifes a crack, they will drive a truck through it. Article history is our last protection against this. It would be so much simpler to leave the content that is already working in place. Trackinfo (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you mean three editors, unless you are ignoring someone for some reason. if you want to reverse a prior decision, you can try WP:DRV. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply saying that it is a weak position to build a consensus from and therefore enact numerous similar deletions of content as a basis. Trackinfo (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the two sections below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2018 (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:2014 IAAF World Indoor Championships Schedule

[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. consensus to merge and delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not changing my !vote, I explain here. Trackinfo (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo: You're statement at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 21#Template:2015 World Championships in Athletics Schedule seam to say the data is being deleted. Which it is NOT! It's being moved to the article space as they are only used in one article. It's not worth it to have a template with the data when it's used on one article, right? And please do look at WP:Subst.– BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to either of the two of you in this. I don't recall dealing with you. I have a great deal of distrust for the follow through on these discussions. In these deletion discussions over a decade, I have met some of the most disingenuous, low life scum of wikipedia editors. Among other trickery, they have wangled many a merge compromise to achieve a consensus, then used the basic editing capabilities to make content slowly disappear. The only back up is article history. But when the original article is destroyed, that history is destroyed with it. Granted this kind of deceit occurs in more controversial content, but the sequence of the events is the same. So say the person doing the subst work screws up, accidentally or with malice. After this template is destroyed, after the original sources go dry as they will, what is our path back to the original? Trust. But no verification. And you know, years down the road, some people come along, referring to this layout information, to write further details about these events; putting things into context and significance. People like me. Trackinfo (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the sections directly above and below this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However that is entirely dependent on an administrator noticing the problem, because the general public cannot see the data, and that is the point. Wikipedia survives because anybody can check anybody else's work and can fix it. This removes that from the equation. Trackinfo (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (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:2016 Olympic Athletics Schedule

[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. content has been merged into articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Should be substed and deleted per previous. Izno (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Schedule information remains relevant. Sources frequently disappear (Olympics not as much as lesser championships), but why make people go digging obscure, payback sources to find information we already have and present in an orderly fashion. A bad idea to delete. This NOM is wholesale nominating a bunch of these templates, making me go chasing to try to hold off the damage. Others have already been destroyed setting a bad, ill informed precedent that needs to be reversed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This commenter has been corrected in his opinion that the information is being destroyed at the Sep 21 and Sep 20 discussions. Closer should consider those also. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inzo, Stop putting words into my mouth. You did not address the issue. You have not solved it. Above, our only hope offered is to find a cooperative administrator. That assumes that we would have to first, detect a problem, then go on a search for administrative help. While these templates do affect content I regularly edit and refer to, I am far more concerned about the precedent we are trying to set. This is an unnecessary deletion. We have working templates already in place with a public edit history. Historically, we copy, paste and edit the format of these templates as each new championship returns. The reason there are so many similar looking templates is because they have been built upon one another over years. We are seeking to destroy that history in the name of clean up. And this precedent can be used, in the wrong hands, to "clean up" or mask elimination a lot of much more controversial content. I seriously object to using any of this discussion as a precedent to serve as a path to further content removal. Prove the NEED for this to be eliminated. Trackinfo (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the arguments in the three sections above this should also be taken into consideration, since the nomination reasons and many of the arguments for keeping/deleting are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2018 (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:Yanson Group of Bus Companies

[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. Compare the relevant AFDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. AGK ■ 20:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in navigation template fails WP:ORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly to see what happens with the AFDs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_1&oldid=863131834"