Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 move to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one use, seems to be designed to be a userpage template anyway. Recommending userfication. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Moto53 has edited since 2015. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
undecided, What is userfication? I was searching for a template for citing scripture and obviously this was not what I was looking for :-) But what is actually wrong with it? I'm sorry to be dense, but I'm still feeling my way through the ROP procedure. Thanks. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
InformationvsInjustice, userfication is when you move a template to the userspace, so in this instance instead of using {{scripture}} it would be moved to {{User:Moto53/scripture}} for them to use as their own template. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's also confusing because of the name space and has little to do with what someone would likely be searching for under that title. Also it uses comic sans.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
userfication @Chrissymad and Primefac: thanks for the help! So is voting for userfication the same as voting for deletion? Is voting for userfication a thing? :-| Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote for userfication, yes. A vote for userfication basically says "it's not needed, but the creator may want to use it." Advocating deletion is saying that we shouldn't have it at all. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2017 (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 result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, only one redlink Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and fix the navigation in the prior and next year navboxes ("Championship not held due to the unstable situation in Cyprus during EOKA fight"), one link is not enough for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have created the article. Xaris333 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaris333: That doesn't help since there is no purpose to a template that navigates only one article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Now its not unused, as you had said. And why to brake the series? Already a user change the Template:1957–58 in Cypriot football [1][2]. But there was a football competition in 1958-59 season in Cyprus. Why to hide this? Xaris333 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not provide any useful navigation function with a single article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've removed the links to other templates from this and similar navboxes, as we shouldn't be directing the reader away from main article space from a navbox. Also removed mainspace category per WP:CAT#T. Some of the other navboxes are borderline deletion candidates, with no article on the topics, and only two articles linked ({{1956–57 in Cypriot football}} for example). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and even the ones with more than three links actually don't link to Cyprus specific or year specific content. Take {{1977–78 in Cypriot football}} for example, which links to 1977–78 European Cup, 1977–78 European Cup Winners' Cup and 1977–78 UEFA Cup. Or {{1979–80 in Cypriot football}} which additionally links the non year-specific Stylianakis Shield. These links should be removed. I think there's an argument for ALL of these navboxes to be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Template:1977–78 in Spanish football also links to 1977–78 European Cup, 1977–78 European Cup Winners' Cup and 1977–78 UEFA Cup.. When we are speaking about football in a country, we include every competition that is relative to the teams of the countries and/or take part on the country. Xaris333 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish navboxes are also incorrect, we would link to Spain in 1977–78 European Cup or similar from these navboxes. Content should be country specific. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Template:2016–17 in French football, Template:2016–17 in Belgian football, Template:2016–17 in German football, Template:2016–17 in Italian football etc. Are they all wrong? No!! Xaris333 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are!! It would not be appropriate to place these templates on the bottom of the pages in question, therefore it is not appropriate to include them here. Only articles which are relevant to both the country and the year belong in a country and year specific navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is under discussion and you are changing the templates by you own decision. This behavior is wrong for a Wikipedian. Xaris333 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand User:Robsinden's desire to remove the links to the 1977–78 European Cup (etc.) articles. There were Cypriot clubs in those competitions, which makes them relevant to Cypriot football. – Pee Jay 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are incredibly tangential links and do not actually relate to the overview of Cypriot football... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @PeeJay2K3:. European competitions are relative with the season of the football of a country. Xaris333 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are Cypriot clubs involved, hence they are part of the Cypriot football season. – Pee Jay 15:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Links only to one article, and has no potential for expansion since the leagues weren't held that season due to insecurity in Cyprus. --SuperJew (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. federal jurisdictions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the template, but upon request for someone who said they wanted to make use of it but couldn't code it. I have no objection to deletion. However, I don't think that means it can be G7'd because it's not exactly my work; not "one author".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: What exactly was going through your mind when you tagged this for G7, after readng my post? Not only does this not meet the spirit of G7 (because as I noted, it was done for another user with their input) but it does not even meet the letter as Agradman made substantive edits to the page. Putting that aside, I take great fucking offense at you tagging it after I essentially told you point blank not to and why as a prophylactic measure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw my bat signal. This was a really cool template (and thank you for creating it for me) and I wish it had caught on, but I have a strong feeling that it did not and never will. Thhat's partly because the burden was on me to market it to other legal WP editors and I didn't. So, thanks for the spirited defense and for creating the template, but I vote to delete. Haven't read any deletion policies, I just suspect it will never get used. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Agradman: Done. Now that you have consented, CSD G7 nomination is actually valid, and so acted upon. And you're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Agradman: Oh, in cleaning up after the deletion I realized there's also {{U.S. state jurisdictions}} – the companion template I created at the same time for you. It is unused also. Do you consent to deletion of it as well? We might as well take care of both.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity: the bulk of articles these templates would link to are yet to be created, but probably will be eventually (certainly over the really long term, and assuming Wikipedia abides and there's no singularity, zombie apocalypse, etc.), so these might be ripe for undeletion at some time. They arose from this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consent to deletion of both templates. It's been a long time since we did this, and I don't recall whether you're a lawyer (?) but some other legal editors criticized the whole idea, on the grounds that the laws between jurisdictions are usually quite similar and fall into one or two regimes, and for everything else there's Westlaw. Now that I'm out of law school & have gotten my hands dirty with real law, I happen to agree. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 July 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]