Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7[edit]

Template:Music of Bangladesh[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 keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 07:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG.- Kishfan (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A template is not subject to WP:GNG. Keep (and possible speedy close) unless someone else comes up with a good reason to remove the template. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid reason fo deletion given. Seems fine to me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:44, 12 June 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:Adnanzakir[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 Deletedelete and histmerge to Adnan Zakir; deleted by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)(edit by: Hhkohh (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Originally a copy-paste of Adnan_Zakir in userspace, since blanked and moved to current location. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:01, 7 June 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:Personal Life[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) ∯WBGconverse 07:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally an 'article' in template space, since blanked. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; former content belongs at the article Ganapati Chakraborty if that's the same person, but it appears to be poorly translated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a test page/ test edit by a new user. Wonder how it survived so long. --DBigXray 11:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, test page. Frietjes (talk) 20:21, 15 June 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:Kenny & Chante[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split into {{Kenny Lattimore}} and {{Chanté Moore}}. Blanked once this process was complete (in lieu of nominating for deletion?). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:30, 7 June 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).

Module:Tone superscript[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 keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 07:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't watched recent developments, but is there any reason to go around rewriting modules back into template code? If Module:Tone superscript is redone like that, its code will be a bit less readable (because of the conditional), and the template will have to use Module:String anyway (so there will apparently be no gain in performance). – Uanfala (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above: there's no indication of a benefit from the masochistic exercise of rewriting this in template code. – Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless the performance impact of the module is significant, there's no need to do this. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:36, 7 June 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).

Mass NSWPL 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 delete. Per this and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 25#Mass A-League team shortcut templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 26#Mass AUS and NZL soccer teams templates Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:26, 7 June 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:TheStart[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) ∯WBGconverse 07:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band's navigational template consists of eight links: the band's articles, two of the member's articles, two album links that redirect back to the band, one album article and two related bands that have common members between them, but do not have the template in their articles. So there are only four real links that are already linked in the band's article and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 10:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 11 June 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).

Module:Librivox book[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 keep. Pretty much Ahecht. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 07:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be implemented in Wikitext using {{last word}}, therefore unnecessary. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext version (which turned out to be more complex than I was expecting) written in sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the benefit of reimplementing this in complex MediaWiki code. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 18:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the benefit of using special lua modules for things that don't need special lua modules. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lua is often more human-readable than templates using complex conditional syntax. What is that harm in keeping around extra lua modules? Storage space is cheap. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 13:51, 11 June 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:Colonial empires[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 redirect to Template:Empires. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Colonial empires with Template:Empires.
The template edit history of Template:Colonial empires prooves its contentious nature, vulnerable with regards to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:NPOV in terms of definition, scope, and inclusion. A more cautious solution would be to merge the contents with Template:Empires while adding small notes to entries listed on Template:Empires (example: Austrian Empire^) with reference to a bottom row note legend saying "Colonial empires" or such. The current link to Colonies in antiquity in the botton row of Template:Colonial empires further stresses the point, as does its exclusion of the Roman Empire (whose colonies offer precisely the etymological origin for the very English word), the Persian Empire, and the Caliphates (which arguably qualify for the criterias by means of holding overseas territories included in intercontinental tradeworks complete with slave trade, etc.). Available flags could be added to the entries on Template:Empires. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most Empires are colonial in nature, so separating has no logic.GreyShark (dibra) 10:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Some of the colonial "empires" in the template (which seems to include any country which had a cross-continental colony) aren't really relevant enough to be featured in the main template, e.g. Courland or Malta. "Colonial empire" and "empire" can mean two very different things, and they have different main-space articles with different definitions. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 09:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see colonial empires are already merged to the Empires template, in the relevant group. So the merge have actually been done the other way round. Brandmeistertalk 17:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect {{colonial empires}}; already merged. Frietjes (talk) 12:33, 23 June 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:NSWPL Attendance[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused. could be merged with Template:A-LeagueAttendance if it's really needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:26, 7 June 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_7&oldid=1138372939"