Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 27 - Wikipedia

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⚡ 02:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Euro coins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, sprawling, full of trivia Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the original idea was to use this template to show each national set of Euro coins, depending on what country was defined. However, due to artistic copyrights on the coin designs, there are no coin images to be shown anymore, hence this template has become useless. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, as fas as I can tell all the information (and more) is in the individual Euro coins articles --SuperJew (talk) 17:54, 28 September 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 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⚡ 02:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Edit0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unlikely to be used Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a gadget with this function, there is no need anymore to retain this template. --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above comment, I have tagged the article for WP:G7 deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy tag reverted. So, in my opinion, delete per nom and template creator. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 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 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 redirect to Template:Discussing. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Discussion in progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unlikely to be used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've made some improvements to the template's documentation, threw it into an appropriate category, and added it to the list at Template:Done/See also. If "keep" is not preferred, then weak redirect to Template:Discussing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{Discussing}}, per Steel1943. One of these two should be enough for us. I personally prefer the brevity of the latter's name. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{Discussing}}; they serve exactly the same purpose. Merge features/documentation, though, if that applies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:12, 28 September 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 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 userfy to their respective subpages of User:Denimadept Primefac (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Da-error1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-not1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-npov1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-pov1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-test1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-vandal1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Da-vandalism1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These all appear to be unused forks of the respective templates, with no discernible difference from their unforked forms. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the deal. I use these templates. I worked on keeping them as they are. You want to denegrate the work that makes it easier for me to do my work here, that's your call. I'm not a fan of what you're doing. You just try to make my life harder. It's just this kind of thing which makes people give up on editing Wikipedia. That seems to be your goal. - Denimadept (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If I recall, the creator of these templates created similar templates in the past (at least one of which was brought up for TfD discussion). If I recall, the consensus in that discussion was "Userfy". Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found the discussion I was referring to: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 3#Template:Da-delete1. Result was "Userfy". Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, these templates predated that discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy without redirect per Steel1943 and previous discussion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I use all these templates. They're subst templates, so they get no sustained links once used. If deleted, I'll find a way to restore them. - Denimadept (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy These are useful templates. If it really bothers you that they're in template mainspace then we can compromise. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that the later version are too friendly. It's silly "delete" arguments like this which really turn me off of Wikipedia. This isn't a major issue, so turning it into one is a waste of time. Justify your argument, TPH. These templates have existed and been used for years before you came along to dispute them. - Denimadept (talk) 03:34, 28 September 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 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⚡ 02:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current-HCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, untouched since 2015 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This project is pinin'; passed on; it is no more; it has ceased to be; it's expired and gone to meet its maker; it's stiff, bereft of life; rests in peace; its pushing up the daisies, its metabolic processes are now history, it's off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible; its snuffed it; THIS IS AN EX-PROJECT!! If ever revived → WP:REFUND.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 27 September 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 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the comments at WikiProject Mathematics ([1] [2]). It's in use now. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After bringing this up for discussion a WP:MATH, the nav sidebar is now being used in some complex analysis articles. --Mark viking (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY Keep. Suggest that in the future, prior to wielding the TfD hammer, TenPoundHammer try engaging with an appropriate Wikiproject to seek advice prior to the hostile action of nominating for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Do sidebars really have any value that justifies their hugely prominent placement? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but, as said, I second the reservations to unconditionally placing them "relatively prominently" (WP:NAV). Purgy (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Without getting into the question of whether sidebars in general should be used, let us note that this "unused" template is now used, and 123 pages bear the "complex analysis" category tag, and possibly all of them, and certainly many, are pages for which there is no reason why this sidebar should not be used if indeed sidebars should be used. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:54, 2 October 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 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⚡ 02:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CNG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, overly specific subset Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - that template is used heavily on Commons and is essential to many ancient history articles including articles I've worked on such as Macrinus or others such as Elagabalus. Only as I look at a TfD for today, do I realize that wikimedia.commons is not linked to en.wiki. Yes, only useful at commons, and not here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useful for commons, not useful here. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 1 October 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 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⚡ 02:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Afd outcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unforseeable use Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially redundant to Template:Afd top, but I do not see a reason to redirect there since the nominated template has different functionality, Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After making it, I later created an improved version: Template:afd star, which shows up to three attempts to vote an article into oblivion. For example:

  War on Women^*†, political slogan (deleted, then revived) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to AfD top. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 30 September 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).