Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Now Commons (MtC drive) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a totally unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Admins are supposed to check to make sure transfers are done correctly before deleting local files anyways, that's why the CSD F8/nowcommons backlog is the longest of the CSD backlogs by far. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ebe123 has apparently resigned from doing drives, so the future of this drive is uncertain. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template started as a small part of the MtC drive as an alternative to the normal {{Now Commons}} - see this post.
We have {{Move to Commons}} for files that have a free license and therefore may be eligible for Commons. If someone find that the file is ok for Commons and move it to Commons they should add the normal {{Now Commons}} and an admin should check and delete if (s)he agree.
{{Now Commons (MtC drive)}} was intented to use on files we as a test moved some files with a free license to Commons WITHOUT a human checking if they were ok. Admins should NOT look on these files or delete them before someone has checked the file. The plan was that if we move some files to Commons then it is easy for users to join the MtC drive because they do not have to move the files - all they have to do is check. Once all the moved files were checked we could evaluate if it was a succes or not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. This template really does add more bureaucracy to the process. I understand the desire to get more people involved in drives, but it adds another step to the process and you have to edit bots to process another type of file. Just unnecessary clutter. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this "add more bureaucracy to the process"? --MGA73 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original process: Someone does a transfer > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay
This process: Someone does a transfer > a user reviews the transfer and then changes the template if the transfer is okay > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay
The admin still has to review it because the ultimate responsibility for the deletion is the admin's, and "someone else cleared it" won't fly if he gets it wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original process is still the main rule (if you ask me). The new process is an exception for a limited number of files.
Lets see the full process:
* Normal process: A bot adds a mtc > someone reviews the file (first review) and transfer if ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.
* This process: A bot adds a mtc > a bot transfer the file and does some cleanup > someone reviews the file (first review) and marks it as ok if it is ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.
So we have 2 reviews in both cases.
Perhaps what is confusing is that Ebe123 suggested that this template was also added on files moved via normal process. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is only being used for bot transfers, it's misnamed, and has been misadvertized. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And that is not the only mistake made in the MtC Drive this time. As you have noticed things got a little out of hand. Personally I don't need it because I have my bot and can move 10, 100 or 1.000 files in no time if I want to. It was ment as a help for users that have problems moving files to Commons.
But since the drive seem to be dead there is no longer a need for the template. So I change my vote to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the irony. I had just removed the TfD per your keep only to see that you withdrew the keep. For what it's worth, I'm quite sorry to see the drive fall apart, I've set forth a reboot proposal that'll hopefully fix things. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 2 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. I can't see where it would be necessary or useful. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hard-coded hand-hacked TOC: can be replaced with a {{horizontal TOC}} on each of its four transclusions without negatively impacting layout or readability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (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.
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 after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced by {{horizontaltoc}}, which doesn't need to hardcode the names of the sections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template without any potential use. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:09, 1 March 2012 (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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

PD or other free-use copying should be attributed using an articlespace attribution template. This isn't an appropriate use of a talk banner. Redundant to {{include-NASA}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with a reservation about timing --- before deleting, we should have a bot run through and insert {{Include-NASA}} in the reference section of all articles whose talk pages transclude {{NASA}}. My AWB skills are quite rudimentary: I can try to do this, but I am not sure I will succeed. Chris: are you an AWB user? —hike395 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That work is implicit in the closing of the TfD, and yes, it'll be necessary: currently this template has nearly five times as many transclusions as the correct attribution template, so lots of pages will need migrated. I don't have AWB myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (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.
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 with the associated navbox template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template provides links to other articles only, therefore it does not serve useful purpose on articles. Callanecc (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amanda Blank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template of a musician who only came out with one album, no-notable singles, and the main article barely claims notability, template is a too soon case Delete Secret account 05:49, 1 March 2012 (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.

CFL team seasons navboxes

[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC Lions seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Calgary Stampeders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ottawa Renegades seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders), the Ottawa Renegades is the worst with only five links. These were previously nominated for deletion, being lumped in with clubs that existed before the CFL. 117Avenue (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Liberia District  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2012 (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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sale el Sol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant as Shakira's singles template already exist. Plus the template track listing already exists in each of the single for the album. Erick (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese city (no images) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement and perhaps other Japan-specific settlement infoboxes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

no working navigation beyond the band members. Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (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.