Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Template:Belo Corporation

Template:Belo Corporation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On December 20, 2013, the FCC approved the sale of Belo Corporation to the Gannett Company.^[1] Gannett has announced that they will promptly close the sale within the coming week. All the Belo station's pages have been replaced with the Gannett templates, making the Belo template unnecessary, as formal consummation nears. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Local TV

Template:Local TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On December 20, 2013, the FCC approved the sale of Local TV LLC to Tribune Broadcasting.^[1] All the Local TV LLC station's pages have been replaced to the Tribune templates, making this template useless, as formal consummation nears. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and confusing name. This isn't about "local TV", it's about "Local TV LLC" -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smith Media

Template:Smith Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On October 1, 2013, it was announced that the last Smith Media station will be sold. The one station, plus the subchannel page is the only two pages that's on the template. Should the transaction get consummated, Smith Media will be defunct, making the template useless. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obsolete template

Template:Obsolete template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Deprecated template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Obsolete template with Template:Deprecated template.
First of all I think it is best to use {{Deprecated template}}, which has better code and better wording. And the category structure of Category:Deprecated templates is better developed, including also detection of unexpected transclusions with Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The code can be copied, of course, so that is not the main argument. I think the term "obsolete" is a judgment, while "deprecated" is an observation. In addition, the word "deprecated" implies that a certain decision making process stands behind the application of the template, while "obsolete" does not imply that. But even all of this is subtleties. The main argument is simply that these two templates are alike in function, wording and content, and no need to have both. Note: if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself, because 1. Obsolete template takes only one parameter, and the Template deprecated takes two (adding thename of the template itself as a first parameter), 2. I'd like to add the appropriate date parameters to the 24 transclusions of this template, based on the history of deprecation. By the way, for the really historical templates we have {{Historical template}}.Debresser (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{obsolete template}} as a relatively new template duplicating the function of the existing {{deprecated template}} -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-deprecated

Template:Db-deprecated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think deprecated templates should ever be speedied. First of all, I have noticed that not always deprecation is discussed at all. And even if it is, the measure of deprecation is not always correctly assessed. Full deprecation means a template is not in use, but also includes that the likeliness of it being used is very low. In addition, I have noticed that it is common practice to keep deprecated templates for years with the deprecated notice, just in case. In short, the deletion of a deprecated template should be carefully assessed and is not a matter for speedying. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deprecation does not make sense as a speedy deletion criterion. Frequently deprecated templates are kept at TfD, so having this CSD template seems to be a way to circumvent prior TfD findings, thus a violation of WP:CONSENSUS -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though this needs to be brought up at, or at least this discussion linked to from, WT:CSD. G6 is a fairly open-ended CSD criterion (as it should be), and I think I recall tagging at least one template with {{db-deprecated}} and having it deleted as G6, so this is not a clear-cut situation. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It may be that in a specific case some admin agreed with the argument, but deprecation is not found among the rules at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, this you can see for yourself. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deprecated templates are included under WP:CSD#T3, for what it's worth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed that. But note that surprisingly Db-deprecated is mentioned under WP:CSD#G6. That would have to be changed even if this template were kept. But my main argument is that 7 days is not enough to establish deprecation. That sometimes takes months and even years. And even then often the template is kept, possibly as historical. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the nominator's argument seems to be that T3 should be removed or amended, and this isn't the proper forum to decide that. Hut 8.5 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't that different from PROD in article space. If a template truly is unused and deprecated, there's no reason to keep it. Deprecated means that it shouldn't be used, not that it's not likely to be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Hut 8.5, but I would support Debresser's proposal if it was in the proper forum to abolish deprecated templates from the wording of CSD:T3. Technical 13 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]