Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 8



Template:Geobox protected area

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC) this has been deprecated for some time as redundant to "Geobox|protected area". I have replaced the remaining 300 transclusions, so this can be safely deleted (or redirected). Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Geobox protected area
 * Geobox label
 * Geobox link
 * Geobox map
 * Geobox note
 * Geobox page
 * Geobox transclude
 * Geobox title
 * Geobox row


 * 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:Geobox locator Afghanistan

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Geobox locator Afghanistan
 * Geobox locator Alabama
 * Geobox locator Alaska
 * Geobox locator Alberta
 * Geobox locator Algeria
 * Geobox locator Arizona
 * Geobox locator Arizona svg
 * Geobox locator Arkansas
 * Geobox locator Australia
 * Geobox locator Australia Australian Capital Territory
 * Geobox locator Australia New South Wales
 * Geobox locator Australia Northern Territory
 * Geobox locator Australia Queensland
 * Geobox locator Australia Tasmania
 * Geobox locator Australia Victoria
 * Geobox locator Baden-Württemberg
 * Geobox locator Bhutan
 * Geobox locator British Columbia
 * Geobox locator Burma
 * Geobox locator California
 * Geobox locator California svg
 * Geobox locator Cambridgeshire
 * Geobox locator Colorado
 * Geobox locator Colorado svg
 * Geobox locator Connecticut
 * Geobox locator County Durham
 * Geobox locator Cumbria
 * Geobox locator Czechia
 * Geobox locator Delaware
 * Geobox locator Denmark
 * Geobox locator Devon
 * Geobox locator Dorset
 * Geobox locator Florida
 * Geobox locator Georgia
 * Geobox locator Gloucestershire
 * Geobox locator Guangxi
 * Geobox locator Hampshire
 * Geobox locator Hawaii
 * Geobox locator Idaho
 * Geobox locator Illinois
 * Geobox locator Illinois2
 * Geobox locator Indiana
 * Geobox locator Iowa
 * Geobox locator Kansas
 * Geobox locator Kentucky
 * Geobox locator Louisiana
 * Geobox locator Maine
 * Geobox locator Manitoba
 * Geobox locator Maryland
 * Geobox locator Massachusetts
 * Geobox locator Mexico
 * Geobox locator Michigan
 * Geobox locator Minnesota
 * Geobox locator Mississippi
 * Geobox locator Missouri
 * Geobox locator Mongolia
 * Geobox locator Montana
 * Geobox locator Nebraska
 * Geobox locator Netherlands
 * Geobox locator Nevada
 * Geobox locator Nevada svg
 * Geobox locator New Hampshire
 * Geobox locator New Hampshire 2
 * Geobox locator New Jersey
 * Geobox locator New Mexico
 * Geobox locator New Mexico svg
 * Geobox locator New York
 * Geobox locator New York Adirondack
 * Geobox locator Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Geobox locator Norfolk
 * Geobox locator North Carolina
 * Geobox locator North Dakota
 * Geobox locator Northumberland
 * Geobox locator Ohio
 * Geobox locator Oklahoma
 * Geobox locator Ontario
 * Geobox locator Oregon
 * Geobox locator Pennsylvania
 * Geobox locator Prince Edward Island
 * Geobox locator Quebec
 * Geobox locator Rhode Island
 * Geobox locator Saskatchewan
 * Geobox locator Slovakia
 * Geobox locator South Africa
 * Geobox locator South Carolina
 * Geobox locator South Dakota
 * Geobox locator Southern Ontario
 * Geobox locator Suffolk
 * Geobox locator Tennessee
 * Geobox locator Texas
 * Geobox locator Toronto
 * Geobox locator Tyne and Wear
 * Geobox locator UK
 * Geobox locator Uganda
 * Geobox locator Uruguay
 * Geobox locator Utah
 * Geobox locator Utah svg
 * Geobox locator Vermont
 * Geobox locator Vermont 2
 * Geobox locator Virginia
 * Geobox locator Washington
 * Geobox locator West Virginia
 * Geobox locator Wisconsin
 * Geobox locator Worcestershire
 * Geobox locator Wyoming

unused, redundant to (and replaced by) the more commonly used location map system Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection, as long as legacy uses of Geobox are not broken by the change, meaning all parameter values used to call Geobox locator templates are correctly translated by the Geobox template code to the equivalent Location Map call (or that old Geobox locator parameter values are changed by a bot to new Location Map parameter values); that the pages Template:Geobox/legend and other references pages such as Template:Geobox/type/river, Template:Geobox/sample and Template:Geobox/doc/River are updated to indicate that new uses of Geobox should use parameters calling the correct Location Map template. Frietjes, I see you have been working on the Geobox template code, but I regret I am not skilled enough to know if the changes you have been making in fact address some of my points.--papageno (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * papageno, yes, I have only nominated ones which have already been converted to use the pushpin_map syntax. I will update the documentation as you suggested.  Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see how you've replaced things on some articles using the Geobox locators that you are proposing deleting her. For example, converting from Geobox locator California to Location map USA California at the article Deadman Creek (Owens River) via . I gather your goal is to replace all with . I think it makes sense to also add a comment to the Talk page for Geobox to perhaps solicit more input, so I have just done that. Please correct anything I have mischaracterized there.  --papageno (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2016 (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).

Template:IPsockCheckuser

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC) This exposes Checkuser info to non-Checkusers. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC) This template was created by an apparent sockpuppet account, has been edited by only one CU, and, I didn't go through all 270+ transclusions but, it has probably never been used by a CU. I would like to see this deleted because 1. there is pretty much zero chance that it will be used by any CU today, and 2. I almost never advise tagging IP socks anyway. Also, please delete all of the IP user pages tagged with this when the template is deleted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IPsockCheckuser
 * Keep unless the CUs support deletion. They know the policy well, and if they say that this isn't a violation, we shouldn't tell them otherwise.  I've left notes on five CUs' talk pages asking them to come here, and if they advocate deletion, I'll switch my vote.  Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless CUs say otherwise. It looks to me like this is a deprecated template which predates the advice in the Checkuser policy to not disclose accounts' IP addresses, as all the transclusions that I checked seem to be from 2007-2008 or so, but I can't confirm any of this timeline. It's pretty clear that its use presently would violate the policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I didn't know that this template existed. There's no reason for it to exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This can be performed by IPsock, if required. Checkusers have confirmed IP addresses, and can under the privacy policy and data access policy, though it is described in policy as "extremely rare". Most of the current uses of this template have had no checkuser input, so are incorrectly applied, plus I also get concerned when a template's main editor is blocked for sockpuppetry. Ultimately though, apart from the incorrect applications, it's a legacy template and no checkuser is likely to use this template going forward. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but the nomination statement makes an incorrect assumption. The template itself doesn't expose CheckUser information.
 * Delete per my comments above, since checkusers are supporting deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all of the uses of the template on user pages, per DoRD. Risker (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete promotes the tagging of IP socks which is often/usually not advised. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:32, 17 December 2016 (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).

Template:Largest cities of Lithuania

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC) single-use template, should be merged with the article; no need for a separate template Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Largest cities of Lithuania
 * 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).