The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Serves no purpose. Appears to be a test. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Essex Pirates have been defunct since 2011, therefore this template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
These cite templates aren't being used, and I don't think are needed. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. A subtemplate that simply duplicates its parent should be deleted. I am replacing {{ OW/OW}} with {{ OW}} in {{ OW load}}, but if there are others they should be replaced as well. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Unclear what the purpose of this subpage is, it simply transcludes the template (which is already shown at the top of the template page) and isn't used anywhere. Fram ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
OW load}}
. I have learned a new HTML entity, so not a waste of time.
The result of the discussion was delete all EXCEPT {{ Helper}} which shall be kept with NPASR. Other help templates are available (and used), and talk pages exist for users to ask questions if they do not want to directly contact a WikiProject. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Helper should redirect to Template:Help me IMO. No prejudice against deletion prior to redirection. -- Izno ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Helper stub}}
for example could be put into the documentation for stub templates, this would potentially be very useful. I do not offer a strong opinion as to whether it should be transcluded there, or substituted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC).The result of the discussion was delete. {{ Convert}} is designed to handle these situations, and thus this template is unnecessary. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
unused subtemplate of convert. (note, there is already a userspace version at User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/text2) Frietjes ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
{{convert/text2|10|wide and|5|ft|m|high}}
gives "10 feet wide and 5 ft high (3.0 × 1.5 m)" whereas, by long standing consensus at MOSNUM, the guideline states that it should be "... (3.0 m × 1.5 m)"; having "feet" and "ft" is also quite jarring. So, returning to the idea of filling gaps, {{convert/text2}} fails since it does not conform to established WP style. Your edits to these two aforementioned articles, Wikid, illustrates this violation of MOSNUM and really should be fixed. I don't mean to be hard on you, Wikid, I don't suppose anyone really does, and I appreciate the work you've done with {{convert}}, but many of these "wrapper templates" you've got hidden in the {{convert}} subtemplate space are not really useful to anyone but yourself. Yes, you find them easy to use but most won't if they ever even find them. I can't see that continuing with this "wrapper template" project is the way forward especially not if no regard is taken to the MOS. If this function is so useful, let's add it to the actual {{convert}} template. If that proves too difficult at present, perhaps we could collaborate on an alternative solution that doesn't involve a plethora of actual templates hiding in the subspace of another template (where templates don't really belong ... and there's another reason for deletion or at least a move) which nobody but one user uses and few even understand if they even find them.
Jimp
06:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete, as there is no call to mark as historical. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems like an exceedingly unusual and highly specific reason to need to delete a page. The same logic could apply to CC-BY-NC type licenses as well; no need for a GFDL-specific speedy deletion template nowadays. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 7. Primefac ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't need a template for two books Legacypac ( talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 7. Primefac ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't need a template for two books Legacypac ( talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus, no quorum. TfD doesn't seem to be the right venue to discuss this issue, which seems to be mostly about how to categorize images and tag the resulting categories, with the vague name of this template being a side issue. The structure of the image category tree would be better discussed elsewhere, and then this template can be renamed or renominated for deletion. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so the previous thread "clocked out" with no consensus because not enough posters showed up. Anyway...
For the reasons mentioned in the previous thread, I don't think we need this template:
Thoughts? Hop on Bananas ( talk) 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if my proposals get done, we wouldn't have this template anymore, would we? Regarding the idea of having separate categories for free and non-free images, the free image categories could be tagged with a template that pretty much says what the current template says, and the non-free image categories could be tagged with a template that says the opposite. But right now, all the current template is saying is that you can't categorise non-free images. As someone said in the previous thread, "it is useful to categorise all files" and if you don't want non-free files showing up on the category page, add __NOGALLERY__. Perhaps the names of the templates I proposed could be "Free image category" and "Non-free image category" or something like that, respectively. Anyway, the just "Images of X" categories would be tagged with a template that says the should only contain categories (I'm pretty sure something like this exists, but I don't know what it's called). Hop on Bananas ( talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I question the need for a warning template specifically for long-term abusers. The previous iteration of this template said "Vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked", which is a pretty clear WP:BEANS concern. I removed that and changed the wording to "Your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and will not be tolerated". But I think the whole template falls afoul of WP:DENY and should be deleted. We shouldn't be acknowledging long-term abusers in this way.
If anything, the very similar but DENY-compliant {{ uw-vandalism4im}} can be used in place of this template where it is felt that the user should be warned before being blocked. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Serves no purpose. Appears to be a test. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Essex Pirates have been defunct since 2011, therefore this template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
These cite templates aren't being used, and I don't think are needed. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. A subtemplate that simply duplicates its parent should be deleted. I am replacing {{ OW/OW}} with {{ OW}} in {{ OW load}}, but if there are others they should be replaced as well. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Unclear what the purpose of this subpage is, it simply transcludes the template (which is already shown at the top of the template page) and isn't used anywhere. Fram ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
OW load}}
. I have learned a new HTML entity, so not a waste of time.
The result of the discussion was delete all EXCEPT {{ Helper}} which shall be kept with NPASR. Other help templates are available (and used), and talk pages exist for users to ask questions if they do not want to directly contact a WikiProject. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Helper should redirect to Template:Help me IMO. No prejudice against deletion prior to redirection. -- Izno ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
Helper stub}}
for example could be put into the documentation for stub templates, this would potentially be very useful. I do not offer a strong opinion as to whether it should be transcluded there, or substituted. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC).The result of the discussion was delete. {{ Convert}} is designed to handle these situations, and thus this template is unnecessary. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
unused subtemplate of convert. (note, there is already a userspace version at User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/text2) Frietjes ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
{{convert/text2|10|wide and|5|ft|m|high}}
gives "10 feet wide and 5 ft high (3.0 × 1.5 m)" whereas, by long standing consensus at MOSNUM, the guideline states that it should be "... (3.0 m × 1.5 m)"; having "feet" and "ft" is also quite jarring. So, returning to the idea of filling gaps, {{convert/text2}} fails since it does not conform to established WP style. Your edits to these two aforementioned articles, Wikid, illustrates this violation of MOSNUM and really should be fixed. I don't mean to be hard on you, Wikid, I don't suppose anyone really does, and I appreciate the work you've done with {{convert}}, but many of these "wrapper templates" you've got hidden in the {{convert}} subtemplate space are not really useful to anyone but yourself. Yes, you find them easy to use but most won't if they ever even find them. I can't see that continuing with this "wrapper template" project is the way forward especially not if no regard is taken to the MOS. If this function is so useful, let's add it to the actual {{convert}} template. If that proves too difficult at present, perhaps we could collaborate on an alternative solution that doesn't involve a plethora of actual templates hiding in the subspace of another template (where templates don't really belong ... and there's another reason for deletion or at least a move) which nobody but one user uses and few even understand if they even find them.
Jimp
06:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete, as there is no call to mark as historical. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems like an exceedingly unusual and highly specific reason to need to delete a page. The same logic could apply to CC-BY-NC type licenses as well; no need for a GFDL-specific speedy deletion template nowadays. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 7. Primefac ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't need a template for two books Legacypac ( talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 7. Primefac ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't need a template for two books Legacypac ( talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus, no quorum. TfD doesn't seem to be the right venue to discuss this issue, which seems to be mostly about how to categorize images and tag the resulting categories, with the vague name of this template being a side issue. The structure of the image category tree would be better discussed elsewhere, and then this template can be renamed or renominated for deletion. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so the previous thread "clocked out" with no consensus because not enough posters showed up. Anyway...
For the reasons mentioned in the previous thread, I don't think we need this template:
Thoughts? Hop on Bananas ( talk) 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if my proposals get done, we wouldn't have this template anymore, would we? Regarding the idea of having separate categories for free and non-free images, the free image categories could be tagged with a template that pretty much says what the current template says, and the non-free image categories could be tagged with a template that says the opposite. But right now, all the current template is saying is that you can't categorise non-free images. As someone said in the previous thread, "it is useful to categorise all files" and if you don't want non-free files showing up on the category page, add __NOGALLERY__. Perhaps the names of the templates I proposed could be "Free image category" and "Non-free image category" or something like that, respectively. Anyway, the just "Images of X" categories would be tagged with a template that says the should only contain categories (I'm pretty sure something like this exists, but I don't know what it's called). Hop on Bananas ( talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I question the need for a warning template specifically for long-term abusers. The previous iteration of this template said "Vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked", which is a pretty clear WP:BEANS concern. I removed that and changed the wording to "Your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and will not be tolerated". But I think the whole template falls afoul of WP:DENY and should be deleted. We shouldn't be acknowledging long-term abusers in this way.
If anything, the very similar but DENY-compliant {{ uw-vandalism4im}} can be used in place of this template where it is felt that the user should be warned before being blocked. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)