August 21
- 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. Improper use of non-free images outside article space (see WP:NFCCP#9) should be fixed by removing the images from the templates, not by deleting the templates that use them. If this userbox should be considered for deletion on other grounds, it is a WP:MFD matter. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the userbox is non-free Daylen (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The image is considered to be public domain, see the licensing. IQ125 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep - "see the licensing" ... which you've disruptively edit warred and reuploaded to instate. The image used was deleted from both Commons and Wikipedia for licensing reasons. I uploaded a version with a fair use claim for use in the article. IQ125 repeatedly tried to change the content of that file page to say it's public domain. When I left a message about edit warring and copyright, he/she decided to upload an exact copy with his/her preferred license (that file is at FfD now). Now, I may well be wrong about the license -- it may qualify for PD -- but this is a disruptive way to go about effecting that change. "Keep" here because it looks like a couple other users have used these templates (or at least one of them), and they don't actually do any harm themselves. "Conditional" is obviously based on the creator not circumventing process to retain his/her preferred image. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:!--AlfaRocket (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep: If the only problem with the template is that it is using a non-free image, then an alternative to deletion would seem to be to simply remove the problematic image and replace is with a freely licensed one from Commons or simply use no image at all and instead just add "Chess.com". I am not very familiar with template matters, but I believe that there has to be something wrong the template syntax itself or the way it is being used for it to be deleted, doesn't there? Moreover, this template is a userbox and userboxes should be discussed at WP:MFD per WP:TD#What not to propose for discussion here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 22 August 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. Improper use of non-free images outside article space (see WP:NFCCP#9) should be fixed by removing the images from the templates, not by deleting the templates that use them. If this userbox should be considered for deletion on other grounds, it is a WP:MFD matter. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the userbox is non-free Daylen (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The image is considered to be public domain, see the licensing. IQ125 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep - see comment above — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:!--AlfaRocket (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep: If the only problem with the template is that it is using a non-free image, then an alternative to deletion would seem to be to simply remove the problematic image and replace is with a freely licensed one from Commons or simply use no image at all and instead just add "Chess.com". I am not very familiar with template matters, but I believe that there has to be something wrong the template syntax itself or the way it is being used for it to be deleted, doesn't there? Moreover, this template is a userbox and userboxes should be discussed at WP:MFD per WP:TD#What not to propose for discussion here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Marchjuly, I was not aware of that policy. Next time I will make sure to use MFD instead. Daylen (talk) 04:01, 22 August 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 convert to subst-only wrapper of ((Infobox UK railway)). Primefac (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:BS-daten.
Not entirely sure of the best way to deal with this, but it's another "everything is in German" template. Usually these have closed as "subst-always" as viable wrappers for templates in English, but the use of this one does not immediately appear to make that an easy option. Izno (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have a problem with merge and substitute if that's feasible. You have to remember that the purpose of these templates is to enable e.g. infoboxes to be imported from German Wiki and display properly on English Wiki until substituted by a bot, usually within hours. If that doesn't happen, some hapless translator spends ages tracking down the equivalent template and manually converting all the parameters (possibly incorrectly). --Bermicourt (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bermicourt: Currently there are 140 transclusions of this template, and the first one I looked at (chosen randomly) was edited in May 2009 – more than 70,000 hours ago – so it seems that this alleged bot isn't doing it's job. Useddenim (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think it's been set up yet. But that's what is happening on similar templates. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a template expert. I'll try and track one down. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Request speedy close as improper nomination. Izno (talk · contribs) has not named the template with which this is to be merged, either here or at Template:BS-daten (permalink) - indeed, the latter shows "considered for merging with [[Template:]]" which is meaningless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can just as easily swap the merge template for the delete template, but a) I'm not seeking a deletion and b) you're being needlessly bureaucratic on the point (which is unusual). I am bringing the template to TFD because I am seeking opinions on what to do, given how we've dealt with the all-German templates before. That's what TFD is for. I honestly don't know the template (or series of templates) to merge it with--but if there is one, I expect that to be made known here. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with ((Routemap-Infobox)) (which I was supposed to merge with ((Infobox UK railway)) but forgot about, so they could be done at the same time). Alternately all of them could be stuck into ((Infobox rail line)) as an embedded option (or ((Routemap-Infobox)) could be converted into a wrapper of it). Jc86035 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst always using a bot. I can have a go at this. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bermicourt: Substituting the template as it is now, or converting it into a wrapper first? Jc86035 (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter. So it points to ((Infobox rail line)) initially; then the bot substitutes it. This may entail an enhancement to Infobox rail line to cater for any additional parameters that need covering. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just had this feedback from User:Frietjes who is a bit of an expert at this sort of thing: "it looks like we can make it a wrapper for ((Routemap-Infobox)) as suggested in the TfD. converting to ((Infobox rail line)) isn't as simple since ((BS-daten)) only generates part of the infobox, and doesn't generate the open/close parts of the table. I believe Jc86035 can do it, but let me know if more help is needed." So I think we have a way ahead. Bermicourt (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin question - Jc86035, it seems the best target for wrapping is ((Routemap-Infobox)), but if that template is being merged into ((infobox UK railway)) how would that affect the wrapper? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac: I don't think it would affect the wrapper since UK railway/Routemap-infobox are compatible, unless empty parameter names are included. Jc86035 (talk) 03:08, 29 August 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).
Too generic names
- 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) 01:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and names are overly-broad. (Many systems have a "Blue line", "Green line", etc.) Useddenim (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These were used specifically for the Manila LRT, Manila MRT and the Philippine National Railways lines in the Philippines. It might be better to have some of these redirect to their counterparts there as that's what they were originally made for. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; superseded by ((Manila Rail Transit color)). Jc86035 (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jc86035. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 26 August 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:Sydney Botany Bay suburbs
- 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 August 29. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 29 August 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).
NFL owner navboxes
- 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) 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in one article... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in one article... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used only in two articles listed... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Not enough links. All the owner links can go in the team templates....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 21 August 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).