Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 22



Template:Belo Corporation

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Belo Corporation

On December 20, 2013, the FCC approved the sale of Belo Corporation to the Gannett Company. Gannett has closed on the sale on December 23. All the Belo station's pages have been replaced with the Gannett templates, making the Belo template unnecessary. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Local TV

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Local TV

On December 20, 2013, the FCC approved the sale of Local TV LLC to Tribune Broadcasting. The sale was completed on December 27th, and all the Local TV LLC station's pages have been replaced to the Tribune templates, making this template useless. Csworldwide1 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and confusing name. This isn't about "local TV", it's about "Local TV LLC" -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as redundant now since that company no longer exists. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and IP —PC-XT+ 21:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per nom, template no longer needed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Db-deprecated

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per changes to T3 criteria discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Db-deprecated

I don't think deprecated templates should ever be speedied. First of all, I have noticed that not always deprecation is discussed at all. And even if it is, the measure of deprecation is not always correctly assessed. Full deprecation means a template is not in use, but also includes that the likeliness of it being used is very low. In addition, I have noticed that it is common practice to keep deprecated templates for years with the deprecated notice, just in case. In short, the deletion of a deprecated template should be carefully assessed and is not a matter for speedying. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Deprecation does not make sense as a speedy deletion criterion. Frequently deprecated templates are kept at TfD, so having this CSD template seems to be a way to circumvent prior TfD findings, thus a violation of WP:CONSENSUS -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel as though this needs to be brought up at, or at least this discussion linked to from, WT:CSD. G6 is a fairly open-ended CSD criterion (as it should be), and I think I recall tagging at least one template with and having it deleted as G6, so this is not a clear-cut situation. — This, that and the other (talk)  09:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. It may be that in a specific case some admin agreed with the argument, but deprecation is not found among the rules at Criteria for speedy deletion, this you can see for yourself. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment deprecated templates are included under WP:CSD, for what it's worth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely missed that. But note that surprisingly Db-deprecated is mentioned under WP:CSD. That would have to be changed even if this template were kept. But my main argument is that 7 days is not enough to establish deprecation. That sometimes takes months and even years. And even then often the template is kept, possibly as historical. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep the nominator's argument seems to be that T3 should be removed or amended, and this isn't the proper forum to decide that. Hut 8.5 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with T3 at all. This particular speedy template, while apparently similar to T3, operates under G6. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, it makes no difference. If speedying templates as deprecated is justified under G6 then a decision to stop deleting deprecated templates is a change in policy which can't be decided here. In any case what the nominator is asking for clearly contradicts the wording of T3. (Possibly the template needs to be changed.) <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't that different from PROD in article space. If a template truly is unused and deprecated, there's no reason to keep it. Deprecated means that it shouldn't be used, not that it's not likely to be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per, but I would support 's proposal if it was in the proper forum to abolish deprecated templates from the wording of CSD:T3. Technical 13 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification In view of the point of view of two editors that this discussion is outside the scope of WP:TFD, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC) *Therefore I motion to procedural close with no prejudice against keep/deletion arguments raised at WT:CSD. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very top of Templates for discussion:
 * Policy or guideline templates
 * Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

The discussion at CFD seems to point to removal of "deprecated" and "orphaned" as speedy criteria. I would propose to keep this thread alive for a few more days, and if the speedy guideline will be accordingly amended, then we could delete this template. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As consensus has been found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, I've amended the text on that policy page as such. Therefore, my motion to procedural close has been invalidated, and we should follow the consensus there by deleting this template. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP:CSD would also need to be amended, and db-t3 deleted as it provides the exact same process as Db-deprecated. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * db-t3 is used in other cases, so that is not related to this discussion, which has now been concluded through WP:CSD as a consensus to delete. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SZM route/Luobao
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * SZM route/Luobao
 * SZM route/Longhua
 * SZM route/Longgang
 * SZM route/Airport
 * SZM route/Guangming
 * SZM route/Huanzhong

unused and not needed (e.g., Line 4 (Longhua Line) uses the rail line template directly). Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GZM route/Line 1
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was substitute and delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * GZM route/Line 1
 * GZM route/Line 2
 * GZM route/Line 3
 * GZM route/Line 4
 * GZM route/Line 5
 * GZM route/Line 6
 * GZM route/Line 7
 * GZM route/Line 8
 * GZM route/Line 9
 * GZM route/APM
 * GZM route/Guangfo Line

single use templates, should be simply merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge <tt>—PC-XT+</tt> 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.