Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11

Template:Golf courses in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

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) Nihlus 00:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golf courses in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't fit into the normal WP:GOLF structure. One of a small number of fairly random templates that were created in the past. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golf/Templates#Courses.

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:IMDb character

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. The only proponent for keeping this template has given sufficient evidence that the template, in it's current form, is effectively useless and would need a complete rewrite; not only would the URL need updating but the individual template calls would need to be updated as well. At that point it is just as easy to delete-and-restart than it is to fix (maybe more so). Primefac (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently IMDb eliminated all of their character pages. Anyone who clicks on the this template in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article gets this 404 message. IMO it is time for this template to be deleted and for a bot to remove it from any articles where it has been placed MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. BangJan1999 has nominated this for a speedy deletion which makes sense. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and remove transclusions. I checked. Not just the link; I did a more thorough check. Looks like it is something that cannot be helped. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently over 50 pages transclude it. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:IMDb_character. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But then again, it is a helper template and can be treated as an ordinary external link. Whereas you delete the external links, you remove transclusions of this. –Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a little bit over 50 pages - 1,254 pages as of right now. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb hasn't actually completely deleted the character information, there's just a lot less of it and the pages are at a different url now. See, for example, Mr Spock. This template could probably be fixed by updating Wikidata with the new character links. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am aware. Like I said, I did investigate a bit. But look at your own link. It is quite clear that repairing the template (so to speak) is not feasible. Even WikiData cannot fix the problem of there being no contents to link. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is content at the pages, just a lot less than there was. The best part of what's left is the images of the characters. Linking to those really means we don't need non-free images in the infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment on that very old and controversial matter of replacing infobox images with external links or any derivative of it thereof. Sorry. I don't want to be part of that brutal controversy. But as for the fate of this template, if you have an alternative plan of action of in mind, please share with us now. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting we replace the infobox images with external links. It's more along the lines that we could replace the non-free images with free images and if anyone gets upset, point them to the imdb link. As for this template, it seems that the problem is made more complex by imdb making character pages for each series/film. That means that Mr Spock will have a page each for ST:TOS, ST:TAS, ST:TNG, each of the films AND The Big Bang Theory. (Did I miss any?) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I never understood why we had a template that encouraged editors to link to a "Popular culture"-type page on a user-generated content site that doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. Had an editor copied the material on the target page into a Wikipedia biography, they couldn't have cited the target page as a source. Good riddance, in my opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This template is meant only to be used in the "external links" section of an article where use of such links is acceptable. It's not meant to be used as a reliable source because it isn't. There are other, similar such templates and they are used to ensure consistency when linking. They also help to identify issues such as this, so they do serve a purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that not all of the character pages have been changed/moved in the way that the Spock one has. In this specific case IMO the link to the Star Trek wiki (Memory Alpha) is more useful to the reader than the IMDb one. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some examples of the pages that you are talking about? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are referring to since most of the character pages don't exist anymore. As to the Spock one IMDb has a few pictures and a and a small list of quotes while MA has a full article with some of those and much more. MarnetteD|Talk 05:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "MA"? The pages don't exist at their former locations and the scope has been reduced but they still exist, as I've already said. The examples I was referring to were the pages you were talking about when you said not all of the character pages have been changed/moved in the way that the Spock one has. So far all of the characters that I have checked still have character pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha as seen in the parentheses of my earlier post. MarnetteD|Talk 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Character pages on IMDb appear to have been eliminated. Grapesoda22 (✉) 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this, character pages have NOT been eliminated but they are a shadow of their former selves. (See the Mr Spock example above). IMDb stated here that character pages will contain "title specific images, quotes, and keywords" but not "character filmography, biographies, videos, character lists or polls". And, of course, most (if not all) are still available as archives. This edit demonstrates that. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:13, 13 February 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:Indonesia at the 2016 Summer Olympics

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) Nihlus 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indonesia at the 2016 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Not used in another country. Yogwi21 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, excessive. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 20 February 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:Pageinprogress

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that advocates the generally bad practice of creating a mainspace placeholder, and then writing a draft elsewhere. The automatic draft detection in place for red linked mainspace pages replaces this functionality anyway. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:23, 11 February 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:Use Jamaican English

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 February 22. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use_Jamaican_English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Use_British_English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Information correct

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) 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Information correct (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Duplicates functionality in {{Update}}, {{Update after}}, {{Outdated as of}}, and encourages violation of MOS:DATED. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I realised after I listed this,[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:Too Many Revisions

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Too Many Revisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ManualTranswiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused bot templates for User:HersfoldBot, who's maintainer hasn't edited since 2014. Requesting soft delete with no prejudice against WP:REFUND. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:42, 11 February 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:Review wikification

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) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Review wikification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unclear template. I'm honestly not sure what cleanup it's attempting to indicate (redirected links do not need cleanup). TheDragonFire (talk) 06:35, 11 February 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:Crazy Loop

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) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crazy Loop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that doesn't provide any additional navigational benefit since the listed articles already link to and from each other without it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:43, 11 February 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:Leftism in the United States

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 Withdrawn. Below, the nominator has written: "Please disregard my nomination." (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leftism in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is there anyway to please improve the template? The V-T-E options need to visible on it, and it needs to be easy for me to (correctly) add names on it. It's under-populated. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I'm sorry about the disturbance. I did see the V-T-E options on the template for Modern liberalism in the United States. Please disregard my nomination to delete this template. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:22, 14 February 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).

Timeline of Microsoft Office

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 February 22. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline_of_Microsoft_Office_for_Windows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Timeline_of_Microsoft_Office_for_Mac (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).