Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Template:Needs table[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:52, 4 November 2016 (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:Expand list section[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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every cleanup template needs a section version. Redirect to {{expand section}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rare case. Only one transclusion. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2016 (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:5 numbered subpages[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 02:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored {{numbered subpages}} to allow for any number, so these are now redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to town, any template that simplifies work and makes life easier. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:46, 27 October 2016 (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:KosovoName[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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like some error or trial template. Its unused in article space Axiomus (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • substitute/delete, basically redundant to {{Req}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2016 (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:Systemic bias[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 Snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 22:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Systemic bias with Template:CSBArticles.
The purpose of these two templates is basically the same, except that Systemic bias is a fork of Template:POV and therefore inherits its placement on the article itself, while CSBArticles goes on the talk page as a result of a !vote from 12 years ago. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. These serve different purposes entirely. {{Systemic bias}} is an article-top dispute template, indicating a systemic-bias-related WP:NPOV problem severe enough that readers as well as editors should be notified of it, as flagged by someone who may have no connection to WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It categorizes in Category:NPOV disputes from October 2016 (or whatever the month is), for site-wide policy compliance work. {{CSBArticles}} is a talk page template of the wikiproject, just indicating an article they feel like working on at some point, for issues that may be subtle or less certain. It does not do any categorization, and if it did (which it probably should) it would be in an article-tracking subcat of Category:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The latter is basically a wikiproject tag (like {{WikiProject Baseball}}, etc.), but for a project that has no topical scope, only WP-internal cleanup and improvement scope, and so should not be tagging articles on a permanent basis, just when they want to work on them as decided by participants in that project. They are not going to accept every {{Systemic bias}}-tagged article as automatically on their to-do list, and not every suggestion or idea by them is bound to rise to the level of Category:NPOV disputes, vice versa. It's a mistake to ever assume a 1:1 relationship between a WP:POLICY page and some wikiproject that is associated with some section of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish. Please note that someone removed the tag from the template and I restored it. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very bad request. Should be removed ASAP...no need to have a deletion tag on thousands of articles when the deletion nomination is wrong and misguided. Snow keep and removal shouldd happen ASAP. Why are our readers having to a see a unless nomination? Lets move on from this disruption now!!!!!--Moxy (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD template on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow oppose This no need request, Just let keep this, This nomination had Wp:point Right? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 15:57, 27 October 2016 (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:MOS[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 snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 22:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically {{cleanup}} without a reason parameter. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as basically an invalid, misleading, WP:POINT nomination. It has a reason parameter, as clearly stated and illustrated in its docs. And "needs editing for compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style" is already a reason, far more specific than just "cleanup". We all get is already that WP:MOS has a little clique of haters. They're not going to delete the cleanup template pertaining to a central, site-wide guideline, any more than we're going to delete {{Unreliable source?}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Per above. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 03:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Tony (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just what is unclear about its use that would warrant its deletion? If an article is a mess, that can be seen easily enough. We always need ways to signal problems to editors at large. Categorisation or template transclusions is a useful one. So what if it lacks parameters??? -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing a few odd request from this editor - I recommend that KATMAKROFAN takes some time to review a few pages like Wikipedia:Template namespace and Help:Maintenance template removal.--Moxy (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (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:Atlético Petróleos de Luanda (handball) Women's 2012-2013[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:56, 4 November 2016 (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:Atlético Sport Aviação 2012-13[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:56, 4 November 2016 (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:Atlético Petróleos de Luanda (basketball) 2012-2013[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:56, 4 November 2016 (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:Asseco Resovia Rzeszów team - 2014-2015[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:56, 4 November 2016 (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:Mexican TV by channel number[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 2016 November 4 ~ Rob13Talk 02:56, 4 November 2016 (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/2016_October_27&oldid=1077411492"