Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

July 23

[edit]

Module:Ancient Egypt era

[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 weak merge. No one seems to care, so be bold and merge them if you want and see if anyone complains. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Ancient Egypt era, Module:Ancient Egypt kings and Module:Ancient Olympiads.
These modules have the same core functionality: extracting a year from a list stored in a data module. Therefore, these are functionally the same and should be merged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:48, 23 July 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:UAA-no edits

[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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple problems with this template:

  • It appears to deride the recipient unnecessarily. When I first saw this template, it seemed like it assumed bad faith to me. Typically, this template is given to good-faith reporters, and sometimes it's given due to a disagreement as to what constitutes an account that is reportable without any edits. Some admins are more conservative about blocking usernames than others, and just because one admin does not believe an account can be blocked without edits does not mean that there is consensus among admins.
  • The content of this template is best said without a template. First of all, making UAA reports about users who have not edited yet is a very specific scenario that is infrequently encountered. Also, from my time patrolling and reporting at UAA, I've noticed that a lot of "Wait until the user edits" replies from admins are to reports made by regular, experienced reporters, and most of the other users those reporters report wind up being blocked. More likely than not, the situation that resulted in the templating is either a slip-up or a disagreement as to what constitutes an account that is reportable without any edits, as stated above.

All in all, I believe this template should be deleted. Aspening (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template was created in response to the fact that UAA is regularly backlogged, and that quite often the reports have no basis in policy. It is not “infrequently encountered”, it happens nearly every day, as any admin active at UAA could tell you. It reflects long-established consensus and the instructions reporters are expected to have read if they particpate in username reporting. If you have problems with the wording or the specifc message that can be discussed on the template’s talk page. Frankly this feels like a “sour grapes” nomination as the nominating user had a number fo reports declined by me today and I am the initial creator of this template. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, I didn't know this was a template until today, and had no idea that you were the creator (I didn't look). And I have no problems with you, it's just that you tend to be stricter about blocking. Please assume good faith and don't make accusations. Aspening (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from the nomination: “just because one admin does not believe an account can be blocked without edits does not mean that there is consensus among admins.” made it look that way. It’s also dead wrong. As I mentioned above, not reporting run-of-the-mill violations, such as WP:ORGNAMEs, with no edits has been in the instructions for UAA for many years, and it was also the subject of an RFC at WT:UPOL two months ago and a seperate talk thread there three months ago, and in both cases there was clear support of the idea. Enforcement, as in all areas of Wikipedia, is not perfectly even in all cases but your assertion that this seems to represent a minority opinion without consnesus is provably wrong, and easily so, if one simply reads the policy or does a cursory check of the talk page where both threads are still visible right now. In point of fact this was moved out of my userspace and into template space because other admins wanted to use it and one of them moved it into template space. So, that’s at least half the reason for the nomination pretty resoundingly refuted.
The rest of your nomination seems to be making a WP:TEMPLAR argument, which is not a valid reason to delete, as well as objecting to the way it is worded, which is an editorial matter resolved through discussion and/or editing, not deletion. I note you attempted neither before making the nomination. In short, I see no valid, policy-based argument for deletion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: one, I was speaking more to situations discussing whether a specific username violates policy. I've seen it happen more than once where one admin will say "not a blatant violation" then another will go and block the user for a blatant username violation. To make things more clear, I meant that sometimes there is consensus that a specific username is a policy violation, but there is no consensus among admins as to whether or not it is a blatant violation. There are also no specific, written-out rules as to what accounts can be blocked without edits. Obviously there's consensus that orgnames should wait until the user edits, but what is considered offensive or disruptive enough to be immediately blocked? I was given this template for reporting a couple of usernames I thought might have crossed that line, but an admin didn't agree and I got templated. I know that orgnames should not be reported until the user edits, and monitor any that I find on the user creation log for a bit instead of immediately reporting them. I know the rules, and yet I get templated for not knowing them.
All faith assumption complaints aside, I think WP:DEL10 applies here, because I'm not seeing evidence it's actually being used frequently enough to merit its own template. A search for a portion of the template text in the user talk namespace yielded only 27 results. Such infrequent usage makes the template redundant, because it's easy enough to take 2 minutes to type up a talk page message once every couple of weeks (about how often this template appears to be used). Aspening (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy section you cite only mentions “redundant or useless” templates, it says nothing about frequency of use. I find it useful, and a few other admins who work UAA do as well. Still no valid reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:48, 23 July 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:Preview warning

[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 no consensus. Note that G7 does not suit; feel free to improve this module if necessary (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork duplication of Template:If preview. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pppery: Delete (CSD G7; I am the only author) once the module has been replaced. I didn't know about the other template. Jc86035 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to claiming WP:G7 (db-author). The module/template is widely used by now. Strange enough this situation is not mentioned in the WP:G7 speedy rationale, but my good sense says: G7 not applicable here. - DePiep (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite code to make it use Module:If preview. This maintains the full Warning formatting nicely over all instances (instead of having template-editors creating numerous handcrafted variant messages). - DePiep (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This would create a lua module that has no need to be in lua. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery:. I don't understand. How is "no need to be in Lua" a deletion ground? But if you have an other solution to keep those standard-formatted messages, I'd like to learn. - DePiep (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: What is the advantage to recreating it as wikitext? The replacement template would still have to call Module:If preview, so there's no time savings in not having to spin up the Lua interpreter. There's no policy, guideline, or even rough consensus that wikitext is preferable to Lua. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DePiep. -- GreenC 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. About the fork of ... claim the OP Pppery made. That is fork (software development) then. Well, this Module clearly is not a fork in this sense. A code fork implies duplicate functionality. That is not the case. Even if the OP meant to say "duplicate functionality" (copy), that would be incorrect too: the module does something different, functionally. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I was using the term "fork" a bit loosely. However, it does not reduce the strength of my nomination. This module is just a bunch of wikitextifyable frills implemented on top of some Lua code that already exists in another module, which leaves nothing left that needs to be in this one. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then change your OP. (And yes, it *does* reduce the strength of it. Do you think words are meaningless? Jee, your OP only has six words, and two of them you now should strike, leaving zero argument). Also, you still have not replied to my other essential notes. - DePiep (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. I can correct my statement while only striking one word and adding another, as I just did. You have still not answered to why this needs to be in lua, when there is already another lua module that has the same core functionality. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep and GreenC: I think |warning=message text (in {{If preview}}) to enable the default message formatting should suffice. Jc86035 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    re Pppery: it is not a duplication either. They have different functionalities.
    re Jc86035: Yes that could be done (I object). That would be a merge then (not a deletion), which again shows my point that they perform *different* functions. Anyway a merge is not proposed, and I object to this one because while is can be done that way, there is no need to do so. I have not read why this merge would be "necessary".
    What actually could usefully be done is a merge the other way around: use module:If preview as a metamodule in module:Preview warning (replacing part of the code). That removes the partial code duplication some people are so worried about. (I still don't see this as absolutely necessary, but alas. I've used handwritten string handling code while module:String is available). -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am still puzzled by what "unnecesary" means, and ... would create a lua module that has no need to be in lua, both by Pppery. So far I only can think of this: like, "It can be done without this module, so it should be done without it; so delete." Well, that is bad reasoning and also, there is this situation where using this module is good coding: when one wants to use this warning module inside of another module (that is: not by #invoke but by internal calling from that other module). Example: such a call was usefully & to the point here (I coded). BTW, it was hardcoded not called by Lua's require because I could not get the frame usage right. Incidentally, my question about this problem is what triggered nom to open this XfD: see this talk [1]. - DePiep (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this module should not delete under G7. Giving a more time on this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 23 July 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:H

[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 relisted on 2018 August 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 6 August 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:Media by uploader

[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 no consensus. Please initiate a VP discussion.I'm uncomfortable with deleting a so-widely used template at an unattended venue like this. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 10:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this template up for deletion (despite it being in use) on the grounds that although intended as a pragmatic reponse to a situation of unclear sourcing/authorship it's not necessarily having the desired outcome other than a very small number of cases, it's not actually assisting in clarifying anything, and is merely "moving the back log around" which is not a sustainable long term solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:39, 23 July 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:Ireland Motorway Service Stations

[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. czar 17:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up this template as it was totally broken, however, it only contains two links so isn't really necessary at the moment. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 13:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AnemoneProjectors: I redid the template to make it more up to standards. —  BrandonALF   (talk) (Please ping me) 14:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrandonALF: Hi, I disambiguated it as it was just a list of places (I'm not familiar so if you could check I made good links that would be helpful), I discovered there are now two relevant existing articles, which I was unaware of. Before I cleaned up the template the first time, there was a link for Topaz but no link for a company (it was just linked to the mineral), so if there are any Topaz services to add that would be good. If the list article (List of motorway service areas in Ireland) existed (which was originally a red link in the template) that would be good. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: I just made List of motorway service areas in Ireland
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 23 July 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:Uw-1rrAbortion

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer true. Topics with discretionary sanctions no longer inherently have 1RR restrictions unless otherwise indicated. Plus, templates like this could cause alerters to be confused because the policy says that alerts must use the official template {{subst:Ds/alert}} and that you cannot warn someone again about DS until a full year. Misleading on many levels.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topics with discretionary sanctions have never had automatic 1RR to my knowledge. Abortion related topics specifically have automatic 1RR: see this. The official template certainly must be used before any sanctions but this can help to warn and explain the restrictions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 2 August 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:SockmasterProven

[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 relisted on 2018 August 2. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 09:56, 2 August 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:Amazon Video Foreign Language Programming

[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. Consensus for deletion is quite clear, though reasons vary:) (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 10:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary template. The template Template:Amazon Video original series already exists. A separate template is redundant and discriminatory. Amazon distributes many of its series worldwide, not only in their original market (I'm Spanish and watching a Japanese original series subbed). A consolidate template for all Amazon series is a better option and makes it easier for people to navigate. Flordeneu (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - At what point does the size of the template get so out of hand that it ceases to be useful? Amazon is still in an American-based corporation with an international reach. The separation of templates was meant to make both more useful. – BoogerD (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that happens, we could talk about it. Amazon may be American-based, but, as you say, it's reach is international and their business view is global, so they don't have problems distributing their series on various markets, not only the one they originally created them for. I find it difficult to believe that at least some foreign-language series are not available in the American version, since we've got several of them in the Spanish site. A consolidate template makes it easier for people to navigate through the series and find what they're looking for. If it goes out of hand, we can discuss some nested templates like Netflix or something. For now, the separation is arbitrary, even discriminatory, completely unnecessary and only makes things harder to find. Flordeneu (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a reminder to leave both templates and associated articles alone until after this discussion has ended. Edit-warring could result in responsible parties losing editing privileges. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These programs should be in the 'original series' template. "Foreign language programming" depends entirely on what a particular reader's spoken language is. Someone who speaks Spanish would find all English-language series a 'foreign language'! Netflix's non-American titles are included in the one template and not separated at all (they're sorted by date of premiere), and I don't see a compelling reason for Amazon to be different -- Whats new?(talk) 08:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Foreign language programming" depends entirely on what a particular reader's spoken language is. - Since this is the English language Wikipedia, "foreign language" automatically assumes any language that is not English. We actually have entire category trees like Category:Foreign-language media in the United States by state. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those entries in those categories for example include exclusively non-English outlets. Amazon Video is a global service, and the article isn't exclusively about the English-language service. Regardless, the Netflix template doesn't discriminate based on language and I don't see a compelling reason as to why Amazon should (or why Netflix's should start) -- Whats new?(talk) 09:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no compelling reason why Netflix shouldn't start. The fact that the programming for what would be assumed to be an English language service isn't in English is a good reason for a template, although maybe there should be one overall template with foreign language programming listed separately to English language programming. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The program is a Netflix/Amazon original program regardless of what language it is in. An English-speaking person has access to and can watch a non-English program. Why is a Spanish comedy or Japanese drama that is available on the English-language Netflix/Amazon not worthy of inclusion along with other titles? On what basis should it be separated? If the non-English show is an Amazon Video original series, it should be in the template. If CBS produced and aired a drama series spoken entirely in Albanian, it is still a CBS show and should be listed in Template:CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming). When Amazon produces and makes available a non-English language show, it should be in Template:Amazon Video original series -- Whats new?(talk) 11:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly my point. All of them are Amazon Original series and access to them is not limited to the country they were originally produced for. Amazon distributes them to other countries, too. A series could be originally a Japanese drama, but could be available in the English site or the Spanish one. Language doesn't seem to be a barrier for Amazon. Separating series by original language it's arbitrary and even discriminatory. Flordeneu (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the original language is not English then it's a foreign language video regardless of whether it is available in different countries. It's not arbitrary to list a series based on the language field in the infobox and it's certainly not discriminatory. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should series be sorted by language? What is the rationale? They are all Amazon original series regardless of language, country of orgin, etc. The template is titled "Amazon Video original series" not "Amazon Video original English series" -- Whats new?(talk) 00:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should series be sorted by language? - They're not, they're being sorted into two groups: one being English language programs and one being non-English programs.
What is the rationale? - As I explained previously, this is the English language Wikipedia. Most people would be looking for articles about English language programs and separating the navbox into English language and "foreign language" would aid navigation for readers.
The template is titled "Amazon Video original series" not "Amazon Video original English series" - The template we're talking about in this discussion is titled "Amazon Video Foreign Language Programming". --AussieLegend (✉) 02:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a reader is using the template for Amazon Video original programs, they are presumably looking for ALL original programs, not just English-language shows. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is the English language Wikipedia they would no doubt be assuming that the programs are in English, not foreign languages. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend:, I'm wondering if you're planning on making a vote between keeping or deleting the template. You seem to have an opinion about it. – BoogerD (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think its worth mentioning that one major difference between Amazon's English-language programming and its foreign language-programming is that those foreign language series are not produced by Amazon Studios. Meaning that Amazon Studios does not receive pitches from their creators, does not develop them, and CEO Jennifer Salke does not ultimately hand them series orders. Rather, Amazon acquires these series after their the production companies in their respective companies have already began producing them and are looking for a distributor to disseminate them. I'm not saying that, that is enough of a reason to separate them (that ultimately, I think, is a matter of opinion) but rather that it is worth noting that this is a major way in which they are different. – BoogerD (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @BoogerD: Some foreign language series are not produced by Amazon studios and they are promoted as "Amazon Exclusive" instead of "Amazon Originals" or "Prime Originals" but series like Inside Edge (TV series) and Breathe (TV series) are co-produced by Amazon Studios. plus Baahubali: The Lost Legends (another acquired series) is produced in four languages including English so I don't think it should not be Foreign language programing and there is another series Die Trying [2] which is in english but an acquired series which is promoted as "Amazon Exclusive" not "Amazon Prime Original". So there are a lot of issues about this template which should be discussed. Sid95Q (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sid95Q: Actually there aren't as many issues as previously thought. I double checked the opening and end credits of Inside Edge (TV series) and Breathe (TV series) and neither credited Amazon Studios as a production company involved with the series. Nor was I able to find a news source that suggested that Amazon Studios was involved either. Additionally, Baahubali: The Lost Legends is primarily in three foreign languages native to the country in which it was produced. I think it is fair to call it foreign language programming based on that. Lastly, Netflix, for example, also has acquired numerous television shows. However, those acquisitions do not appear in the original programming template but rather are listed in the "List of original programs distributed by Netflix" page. – BoogerD (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Flordeneu. When Diablo Guardián was released, I tried to find a template to add this series to Amazon's original series list and I did not get anything. Until the user BoogerD included it in this other template. It is better to leave a single template.--Philip J FryTalk 19:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any further reasoning for that vote to delete? The template was easy to find on the Template:U.S. network show templates as well on List of original programs distributed by Amazon and on all of the show pages listed in the foreign language template. It wasn't exactly hidden.
On a sidenote, what was the justification for the creation of Template:Netflix original films? An articles for deletion debate was recently had about a template for Netflix films just a few months ago and the consensus was to delete it, which it was. You can see that debate here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 27. Just food for thought. – BoogerD (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the template was hidden, I simply say that I did not know of its existence. And with respect to the other template, I do not see that the Netflix films are mentioned in another template. Something that misses me So I decided to create the template, since Netflix has produced many films.--Philip J FryTalk 20:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I was mentioning to you that there was a Netflix film template and it was deleted in April 2018 as seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 27. – BoogerD (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After participating in the discussion above I don't see a reason to delete but I do see reasons for keeping, especially since this aids navigation which is a benefit for our readers. However, I would agree to merging the two templates, with the foreign language content listed separately to the English language content. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging the two was exactly the idea. That was I wanted this one deleted. Flordeneu (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination proposes a deletion, not a merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Templates merged. Please delete this one: The two templates had been merged at Template:Amazon Video original series. This one can be safely deleted. Flordeneu (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Templates had been merged as seems its the consensus, unless BoogerD keeps reverting them. Flordeneu (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per AfD procedure, action cannot be taken until after after a discussion has been closed. This discussion has not been closed by an impartial third party yet. Do you not understand the process? – BoogerD (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Better to relist last time than close now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 23 July 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:@GERMANY

[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 relisted on 2018 August 2. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 09:52, 2 August 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_July_23&oldid=1138372966"