Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 22

< November 21	November 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 November 30. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon^Talk 13:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Dreadnought class battleship

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) EN-Jungwon^Talk 08:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dreadnought class battleship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NAVBOX for a class of ships that has only ship. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's part of a series - note the "preceded by" and "followed by" parts - and this is cherry-picking as well since it is established consensus to have navboxes for all classes of ship regardless of number of ships. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per The Bushranger. There are plenty of other single-ship navboxes out there as well, so maybe this will establish a precedent not to bring them to TfD as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sturmvogel 66, who couldn't have put it better. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Further, HMS Dreadnought may have been the only ship in her class, but she gave her name to a whole class of ships of huge historical importance. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2020 (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:Euler diagram of number sets.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euler diagram of number sets.svg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused --TheImaCow (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more article content that is probably only relevant in a few places and is easy enough to move around. Inappropriate for template space. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:02, 23 November 2020 (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:Uw-tpv4im

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) EN-Jungwon^Talk 08:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-tpv4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to have this-most times it's a good-faith mistake. This is WP: BITEy. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, most times it is a good-faith mistake and then this template does not apply. But that is no reason to remove the template entirely. It is not biting the newbies to have a template to use against egregious abuse or trolling; WP:BITE might apply if the template were used against a good-faith new user, but like all the other 4im templates, there are times when it is appropriate to place it. --bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, we'd have uw-unsourced4im. Egregious unsourced editing can also happen. Or uw-subtle4im. uw-vandalism4im is in egregious cases as in other 4im templates. No case can possibly be this egregious when uw-unsourced4im isn't. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 4im warning series tends to focus on harassment and personal attacks against other editors, egregious spam, and serious BLP violations. If you identify other kinds of vandalism that could require a 4im warning, you can always request that it be created. Again, there are certainly cases of egregious vandalism of others' talk page comments, such that this template is appropriate. You only have to check the edits of users who have received a 4im tpv warning to see that. --bonadea contributions talk 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me two examples. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Misuse of the template does not justify its deletion. Its purpose is quite clear. There are some obvious times when people cross the line and they need to be notified when their behavior is obviously unsatisfactory. We do not need to go through the four-level warning system for the most obvious cases. This template should be deployed only in the most extreme cases, but anytime it's used when it's unnecessary and an incivility in its own right is not grounds for deleting it. I also find it unlikely this would be deployed for a user's first identifiable offense; I'd think it'd most likely apply for users with a troublesome history but with no recent warning headings to follow up on. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Usable in egregious cases such as replacing a talk page with obscenities or other talk page blanking vandalism. WP:BITE is pretty much ignorable if the intent of the newbie is clearly to vandalise. You can't AGF someone who clearly wants only to vandalise, and this template is for such situations. Java Hurricane 13:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- uw-unsourced4im should have a template in that case. There can be egregious instances of unsourced content. I'll work on making one if this fails. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template serves as a final warning after other warnings had already been given. It saves time with editors who do not want to issue step by step warnings a day or so after giving a series of others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's {{uw-tpv4}}. This is when they jump to a Level 4 immediately Knowledgekid87. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry let me be clear, take this as an example: I choose to warn IP or editor whatever today because of stuff and add level warning templates as usual. They stop what they are doing because they might want to see how much they can get away with before crossing the line. Two or three weeks later.... they go and do a single stupid thing. Rather than go warn them again this template saves the time before going to ANI or whatnot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2020 (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).

Module:Sports color/ice hockey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) EN-Jungwon^Talk 08:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Sports color/ice hockey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting unused module, which was recreated in August 2020. The same module was deleted back in July 2018. In addition, a consensus to use/create it was never reached (nor now, nor in 2018), for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive76#New wiki-code templates for all 32 NHL ice hockey teams, because WP:NHL uses a different approach regarding teams' colors. Sabbatino (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, but if this is the exact same thing as was deleted two years ago, then it may qualify for WP:G4 speedy. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep, if you read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive76#New wiki-code templates for all 32 NHL ice hockey teams you will see that the objection is to using a background-color, color, single border format for the coloring. however, this module does not do that. it is not the same thing as the templates that were deleted two years ago. @Sabbatino and Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: please compare the syntax in Template:Anaheim Ducks/sandbox with the syntax in Template:Anaheim Ducks. the former is facilitated by this module, and does not require remembering the coloring scheme for the team, just the name of the team. if you read the linked discussion, you will see that isaacl and Ejgreen77 both agree that centralizing the specification of the coloring is a good thing. what people rightfully object to is changing the coloring scheme, and this module does not do that. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think I understand it much better now. Now I would like to know what the templates from two years ago actually did, and whether a consensus can be established that this is truly the right way to go (I see the benefits, so I'm not disagreeing, but this sounds like some sweeping changes that should be brought up on a community-wide scale before being implemented). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: I am well aware of what this module is supposed to do. It is supposed to imitate Module:Sports color/basketball and similar modules. We use as less decoration as needed on ice hockey pages/templates/etc. and looking at the state of non-NHL ice hockey pages it makes it perfectly clear that this module is absolutely not needed. In addition, three templates (Template:Ice hockey color, Template:Ice hockey color cell and Template:Ice hockey color cell2) have also been created, which imitate the basketball module's coloring (even the creator of these three templates acknowledges that), which is the exact problem said in the discussion mentioned above by Frietjes. This module and templates are NHL-only and would continue to be as such if kept since nobody really edits ice hockey pages except for a small group of editors (compared to basketball, soccer, NFL and some other sports). On a side note, you agreed with the deletion of such module back in 2018 so why change your opinion now? – Sabbatino (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified editors of WP:NHL since this is directly tied to the project. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and expand out to include minor league teams, European teams, etc. How, where, when, and to what extent the module is used by the ice hockey project, is, of course, up to them. But, having all of the color data collected at one centralized location instead of scattered over hundreds of pages is definitely a good concept. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2020 (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:Infobox Norway kommune

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 November 30. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon^Talk 08:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Rashidun princes and princesses

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 speedy delete. G5; created by a sock of User:IslamMyLoveMyLife Favonian (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rashidun princes and princesses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template title is misleading. Leadership of the Rashidun Caliphate was an elected or appointed position. There was no hereditary succession and four of the five holders belonged to different families, hence there is no concept of princes or royalty. Looking up the individuals listed here alongside royal titles does not return any meaningful results. Alivardi (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, they all were their sons and the daughters, thus the princes and the princesses, and these all four caliphs and their children had important and honored position in Sunni Islam. Rashidun The Rightly Guided (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alivardi. In fact, the legal case of Shuraih Al-Qadhi shows that neither Ali (RA) nor his sons (RA) had any special status, but were treated equally to commoners. The traditions of royalties didn't start until the Umayyads. Thus, this is an arbitrary category as far as academia is concerned. If Rashidun The Rightly Guided presents reliable sources that make this template important, I'll change my mind.VR _talk 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such view in Islam.— Hammad (Talk!) 07:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFAIK the Rashidun caliphate had no concept of princes/princesses/royal family, and no WP:RS evidence was presented or found. As others said, the caliph post was not hereditary during the Rashidun era. HaEr48 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many of the people contained here are important, but not because they were "Rashidun princes and princesses". This is an arbitrary categorization that is not really a defining or even shared characteristic of anyone included in the template. Constantine ✍ 15:39, 23 November 2020 (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:Eranbotproject

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 November 30. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon^Talk 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Entity

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 G8 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, copied from [1] --TheImaCow (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The first version in the history qualifies for deletion as a test page. The current version qualifies for deletion as G8, dependent on the non-existent Template:Infobox row * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 22 November 2020 (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:Eléctrico Futebol Clube futsal squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eléctrico Futebol Clube futsal squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox without links --TheImaCow (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 22 November 2020 (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:Db-vdhoax

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-vdhoax (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, a "blatant hoax" is pure vandalism. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Template:Db-vandalism and Template:Db-hoax already exist, so this one doesn't need to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a blocked account with a spammy username that misused the doppelganger exception on WP:SOCK. Sockpuppeteer then blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. Template likely created without consensus establishing it was needed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categorization creep and suitably covered by other templates. If something this niche needs to be specified, it can be specified with a custom db rationale. jp×g 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (scritches his head) Erm ... a blatant hoax IS "pure vandalism." Ravenswing 09:14, 30 November 2020 (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:Velocio–SRAM Pro Cycling riders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 November 30. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon^Talk 08:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Velocio–SRAM_Pro_Cycling_riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Middle Ages wide 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 November 30. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon^Talk 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle_Ages_wide_2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Middle_Ages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).