Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 12 - Wikipedia
Analog clock templates
- 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 all ~ Rob13Talk 14:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Analog clock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Analog clock 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Analog clock 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Analog clock 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Mostly unused (the original template has six user-space transclusions), redundant, and non-fucntional (they show the time the page was rendered, but do not update). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, or move to userspace like many of the other clock templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who made templates 2-4 is indefinitely blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - from the page of the blocked user:
Useful templates and should be kept. We have a lot of clocks in template space and I think we should keep these. VarunFEB2003 11:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] - Delete all. Why would anyone want a clock that doesn't update, when we have a perfectly good clock gadget which does update and resides in the menubar so doesn't take up space? Utterly pointless cruft. Needless to say, as appears to be par for the course for User:VarunFEB2003 templates 2–4 are uncredited plagiarism (in this case, from User:ais523/Sandbox/Clock). ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused, and seems like it won't be used anytime soon. Just asking, @Iridescent:, what's the link for the (updating and working) clock? WikiPancake ✉ 📖 14:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiPancake, open Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to "Appearance", and check "Add a clock to the personal toolbar". ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 18 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).
- 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. NPASR. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template to navigate between sections of a multisportclub, but there is no article about the parent, making the template swim in the water and losing its purpose. The Banner talk 08:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately there are plenty of (Hungarian?) templates like this (Template:Vasas SC sections, Template:Zalaegerszegi TE sections, Template:Ferencvárosi TC sections, Template:MTK Budapest sections, Template:Műegyetemi AFC sections, Template:Kecskeméti TE sections, Template:Budapesti Honvéd SE sections, etc.), where there is no article for the parent entity, making look like the football team is The club. I don't know whether it is an issue for the Hungarian sports templates only, but if you think this in inappropriate, you should delete almost all of these templates. And actually for PVSK there is a kind-of-parent site, the Pécsi VSK (disambiguation) page. vampeare (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to a disambiguation page is an even worse idea than not linking at all. With the link (now again removed) is will show up at teh maintenamnce list "Templates with disambiguation links". With just 4 subsections, it can easily be replaced by a "See also"-section. The Banner talk 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep, seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 30 September 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).