April 7
Template:Not enough 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. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this exist? Is this some type of joke? KMF (talk) 22:28, 7 April 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).
Template:ImageUpload
- 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. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template does not seem to serve any purpose anymore, especially given that the Commons counterpart was deleted lately. Is there a reason to keep this around? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see a reason to keep this if the Commons template is gone. MediaWiki:UploadForm.js doesn't exist nor does it have a deletion log. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:02, 8 April 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).
Template:Titleblacklist
- 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. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template and the associated log page are no longer in use, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the template and mark the log historical - looks like it never caught on. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:02, 8 April 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).
Template:On An On
- 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. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NAVBOX with only 1 related article so navigation is not improved by having this. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 10 April 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).
Template:Rab and Ryan
- 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. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of navbox is a deleted article, not really enough links to provide useful navigation. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 10 April 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).
Template:Instant permalink
- 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 as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, undocumented, misleading title (inserts the lorem ipsum rather than creates a permanent link of any kind). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Test page. Tagged – Train2104 (t • c) 15:23, 7 April 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).
Template:This Is Us ratings
- 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 15:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed for a one-season series, provides no further information. -- AlexTW 04:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, can be merged with the article if needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 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).
Template:Talk-warn
- 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. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User warning template for noncontroversial speedy deletion criteria. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: This is a procedural re-nomination due to confusion the first time around. The nominator is advocating for deleting both templates. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we don't need to warn users that a talk page of a non-existent page they created might be deleted. Similarly, we don't need to warn users that a redirect to a non-existent page which they created might be deleted.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox name module with Template:Infobox Chinese.
Two translation/transliteration templates which have similar purposes, except ((Infobox Chinese)) has a lot more options and is often used as a standalone infobox instead of as an infobox module. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What exactly would the merge entail? Would the merged template retain the functionality and behavior of the individual templates or would it result in a huge headache on thousands of articles (both are heavily utilised templates with over 10,000 transclusions between them)? It's important to note they transclude in very different ways: Infobox Chinese is an entire infobox while Infobox name module just adds some sub-fields to an existing infobox. And while it's true that Infobox name module has fewer options than Infobox Chinese, its stripped down format makes Infobox name module a bit more general purpose i.e. an editor can use it to add any language field to an infobox. In principle though I am not against the merge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we need some clarification: is the proposal that we merge Infobox Chinese into Infobox name module so that ((Infobox name module)) would become the all-inclusive template? Infobox name module is used with Indic scripts, not just Chinese, so my concern is that we are promoting wide, not narrow usage. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cyphoidbomb: I think it would be best to use "Infobox name module" as the resulting template name, although the features of Infobox name module would be merged into ((Infobox Chinese)) and its subpages. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am leaning towards merging it into that template box. Personally I do not see much value in a infobox just to translate things into multiple chinese names (usually on Chinese foods, places, or events), when you can also use the chinese wikipedia. Also if you check other languages you would not see a Spanish/Portuguese template, a Thai template, or an Indian template. One of the issues with merging that chinese template is the dialects each have their own pronunciation which can make the template very large very fast. I am in favor of keeping everything somewhat consistent for displaying foreign languages for the reader. --Cs california (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cs california: I think they're useful for understanding how to pronounce the characters (zhwiki actually doesn't have transliteration data). In languages using alphabets it's obviously a lot easier to figure out the pronunciation from the spelling. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 04:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jc86035: if the pronunciation was the issue why not just linkout to wikitory. The template also should have another name other than Chinese there are Burmese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Laotian, Japanese and Indian language fields that serves the same functions as the chinese fields.--Cs california (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cs california: Some phrases are quite long and having to go to each character's page would be a bit inconvenient. (Regardless, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the templates from ten thousand pages just because the information is duplicated in Wiktionary.) The naming issue would be solved by moving the template to "Template:Infobox name module" or "Template:Infobox translation and transliteration" or something. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jc86035: as I stated before I do not mind if is kept as long as pages are consistant with using it. --Cs california (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't merge. Infobox Chinese should be kept as a standalone infobox as it makes the linguistic information easier to spot. Scriptions (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scriptions: The merge is to be the other way round. The infobox will remain transcludable both as a standalone table and as part of another infobox. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 08:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (nominator) Support merging Template:Infobox East Asian name as well, although it's a wrapper of Infobox Chinese subpages already and I'm not sure if we'd need another discussion for that template. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 09:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – The two (or three?) infoboxes do seem to serve the same function. --Brett (talk) 05:11, 22 April 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 relisted on 2017 April 17. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 17 April 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).
Template:Kongfa Waroros
- 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 as G2 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a draft, rather than an actual template. Also, I can't find anything on Wikipedia on Konfa Waroros. The creator seems to be new and unaware that there is a sandbox for testing. —Tuxipεdia(talk) 11:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Test page. Tagged – Train2104 (t • c) 15:23, 7 April 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).