Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15[edit]

Template:Jon & Kate Plus 8[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. ~ RobTalk 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All links go to the same article. Probably no chance for expansion. Fuddle (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose nominator is incorrect, the two parents have articles, as does the episode list, and the show itself, so all except one blue link is a separate article. And indeed, the sextuplets should also have a separate (joint) article because they are notable independent of the TV show, so there is potential for further growth. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply/Correction What I should have said was "Every link is the navbox is already on the page for the show." Maybe that's not enough for deletion, either. The box looks empty, I guess that's my issue. :) Fuddle (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The box has seven blue links which are for four articles, plus a Commons category. It's as large as many other templates on Wikipedia. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as pointless. standard inter-article linking works fine here. we don't need a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2015 (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.

Template:Collapsible archive box[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 redirect {{Collapsible archive box}} to {{Archive box collapsible}}. The former, it is unanimously agreed, should be somehow disposed of, and given that any merging of unique features into the latter is still possible, I think there is presently consensus to perform a redirect. No consensus with regard to other templates. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Collapsible archive box with Template:Archive box collapsible.
Similar and confusingly-similar names. May both be redundant to {{Archive box}} (38,682 transclusions), or vice versa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 15 August 2015 (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.

Template:Metatalk[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_6#Template:Metatalk. ~ RobTalk 04:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to similar talk-page header templates. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment which talk page headers is it redundant to? The documentation explains which circumstances this template should be used, and why it shouldn't be used widely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because this template solves a problem and doesn't violate policy. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with Template:Off topic warning. They serve similar purposes, although there're some differences. Ctwabn (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2015 (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.

Template:Resolved issues[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 - uncontested. I've replaced the two transclusions with {{Consensus}}. Alakzi (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions. Redundant to other talk page headers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 15 August 2015 (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.

Template:Acecandheader[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 to delete, merge, or whatever. Discussion petered out. Nevertheless, I'll move this one and {{ACEheader}} for clarity. Alakzi (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and outdated. Can be replaced with a more generic talk page header. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment has WP:ARBCOM been informed of this? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • By necessity, arbcom doesn't have any direct influence on the running of elections. The correct notice should go to whoever ran the 2014 Arbcom Elections, since they would be the person most likely to know if this is a template that remains useful, or just one that was useful in the past (or whether I'm wrong and it should be blown away). I've notified User:Mike V, who served on the committee for last year's election and may have some insight. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per IP 67 pending WP:ARBCOM confirmation of disuse of this template. ♥ Melody ♥ 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Which template was this redundant to, again? The entire point of using a custom template was because the talk pages for Arbcom elections had additional rules that applied, both to the candidate and to people discussing the candidate. We also, at least in 2008 when this was made, had many many editors who don't get involved in the drama-filled areas of the project, but who might look at the candidates for arbcom. Adding links to the election policies and to the election talk page (mainly for reporting shenanigans) suited the election process at that time. And it seems to have worked well enough for use through 2012. Mark it historical if you like, but I don't see a compelling argument for deleting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears this template was only used in the 2008 election. More recently, we've used a new template for each election. This template contains the same talk page notices, but also has links to the candidate's statement and questions. I have no opinion on whether it is kept or not, but I should note that it is no longer being used. Mike V • Talk 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: So, could this template, and all of the templates used between 2009–14 be merged into one template that has a new parameter for the 'year' of the election? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 19 August 2015 (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.

Template:Main Music Artists and Bands of Venezuela[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 as failing WP:NAVBOX and WP:OR. Alakzi (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

better covered by a category to avoid the "Main" POV classification and redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am commissioned to create the pages, quickly, translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, for these no longer red links. I think this template is important because it is a link for people to know which are the best examples and Venezuelan genres, as sound, know that exists via Wikipedia, I know that is not a means of propaganda, by that i place all of the finest examples of genres with songs that are successful, i do not delete any one, if missing some, wikipedia is a medium created by many people so people will providing more bands. In this moment, i am creating Template:Main Music Artists and Bands of Cuba--Vvven (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vvven: Saying which are best examples is subjective though. These are things can be covered on Music of Venezuela article and categories. Why not just make a to-do list on your userpage so you know which ones have to created? Alternatively, you can also add missing articles to on this Missing articles section on the Latin music project. Erick (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • if but is not the same an artist that have a classic within the genre, with else other than just wrote a CD and that does not know anyone, but has an article on Wikipedia that these templates will help people who do not know nothing of that genres, for that i put "main".--Vvven (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly cannot understand what you're saying. Are you using a Spanish to English translator by any chance? Erick (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry but i fix wrong parts--Vvven (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added "Main Music Artists and Bands of Cuba". there is a reason why we don't have Main Music Artists and Bands for every country. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (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.

Template:AFC Request[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 without prejudice to recreation in the event of this template being needed in the future. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, unused, and basically redundant to {{Edit fully-protected}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, it's redundant, I've never seen it used. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly disagree that it is redundant, however will still vote Delete as creator because the intended AfC process fell through and has been reverted to anyone join after an RfC. The original idea was to provide a edit count link alongside an edit protected request so admins could easily respond to the requests without hunting down their edit count. As I said, the RfC was overturned and template wasn't needed. Pigsonthewing. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: but if at some point in the future we restrict access to the Helper Script wouldn't this need to be created again? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:42, 21 August 2015 (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.

Template:Mega64[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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mega64 episodes (season 1), this template does not link to any articles. Cerebellum (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are only two articles for this topic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2015 (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.

Template:Pantech phones[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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantech Vega Racer, this template does not link to any articles. Cerebellum (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_15&oldid=1138533811"