Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 27



Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Unused, intended for list articles that have since been merged. ~ RobTalk 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI
 * List of computer viruses (E-K) UI
 * ✅ per nominator SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:44, 6 April 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).

College football national champion 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 all, replacing with College football national champion (championship game era) navbox where necessary. ~ RobTalk 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC) These navboxes are redundant now that the more inclusive Template:College football national champion (championship game era) navbox has superceded them. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BCS National Champion navbox
 * Bowl Alliance Champion navbox
 * Bowl Coalition Champion navbox
 * College Football Playoff National Champion navbox
 * Delete per nom. More comprehensive navbox exists.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Inspiration for their creation was to get rid of e. g. the playoff navbox with 2 teams. Cake (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cake, because if Cake wants a navbox deleted then there's probably a very good reason. Lizard  (talk) 16:50, 3 April 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:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs

 * 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 here. ~ RobTalk 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
 * Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
 * Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs

No reason to separate named and unnamed medical signs and symptoms (confusing in fact). Would benefit readers to have these located in the same navbox, making navigating less confusing. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 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:Chest trauma

 * 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 here. ~ RobTalk 12:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Chest trauma with Template:Trauma.
 * Chest trauma
 * Trauma

Duplicate scope (and at least 50% of contents!) Contents have better navigational value if included all together. So I propose a merge Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 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:Protected generic image name

 * 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. Should the FfD consensus be challenged and reversed, the templates can be restored in a jiffy. Deleting obsolete templates is routine at TfD. Nothing's gonna come of people doubting the original close here. Izkala (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Files_for_discussion/2016_March_7 has decided to deprecate the usage of this method for handling vaguely named files, so this template should be deleted, or if the links are an issue marked as historical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Protected generic image name
 * Pp-generic-image
 * Adding a subtemplate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And what if the local image blocks a legit Commons image that someone wants to use? That would still create a backlog.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment only two people participated in that discussion. I don't think it was adequately advertised to end up with a deprecation outcome. If we can block all COMMONS images from appearing at these highly generic filenames (which has not occurred, since many of the file names are blue with real images instead of placeholders), then the files should never have been deleted in the first place, as the COMMONS versions are inadequately named, and English Wikipedia should not suffer from errors occurring on COMMONS. Unless COMMONS can be clearly salted first, all the protected generic name file pages should be undeleted to prevent article pollution on English Wikipedia; and whenever a page is decided to be overly generic on English Wikipedia, it should be protected to prevent COMMONS bleedthrough, until such a time as COMMONS can be salted for each an every page thus decided. So, these templates should always be needed, as new file names come up, while awaiting salting on COMMONS. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think having these local files does help us any. The point is to not have these vaguely named uploads, merely hiding them behind a placeholder is not really the point and does only create confusion for uploaders.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think that we should block Commons images. That would just create a backlog: the generic placeholders will then need to be renamed so that the Commons images become unblocked. Also, generic file names are regularly blocked on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is clearly not the case, since if you look at the FFD discussion all the files with bluelinks are commons files with extremely generic names, which have existed for many years on Commons. We shouldn't be allowing extremely generic files to bleed through to English Wikipedia, if people need to use such files, they should then endeavour to cleanup Commons first and rename those files before using them on English Wikipedia, thus making Commons cleanup its messes first. (including redirects) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a file is uploaded on Commons and this file hides a file on Commons, then the local file needs to be deleted or moved away to unshadow the Commons file. What you are proposing is that we should create backlogs simply for the purpose of creating backlogs. Additionally, the upload process needs to be user-friendly. For example, if a user uploads a file, then the user expects that it should be possible to add the file to a page, but you are suggesting that we should make the upload process user-unfriendly by deliberately making so that images won't appear on pages when users upload the pictures. If a user uploads an image with a bad name, then the user still expects it to display on pages. Sure, it should be renamed, but that's a later and less important problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They are not backlogs as far a English Wikipedia is concerned. That Commons is a mess should not affect English Wikipedia, which should be kept in order. Having these filenames blocked on English Wikipedia keeps English Wikipedia from being disordered. If Commons can't keep its own house in order, its mess should not be allowed to infect English Wikipedia -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, there was a ShadowsCommons backlog before all these files were deleted. There probably would be a future backlog as well as files are continually uploaded to Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These would never become ShadowCommons backlogs, since any filepage with this template will never allow the commons image through, so there is no backlog on English Wikipedia to fix, as the purpose is to block Commons, instead of just indicating a different file exists on Commons. So no fixing is necessary on English Wikipedia. It is a mess on Commons, instead of English Wikipedia. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. If other editors disagree with the FfD outcome, they should take that up through WP:Deletion review or similar. In the meantime, the reality is that these templates are completely unused and providing no benefit to the project given the FfD outcome. ~ RobTalk 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and reopen the discussion about its deletion - two editors is not a consensus and the original discussion should not have been closed to begin with. --Gimubrc (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The consensus between two editors has been challenged.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have processes to deal with challenging consensus which have not been followed here. The three editors who deleted these are not atypical of an FfD discussion, and it's completely improper to keep an unused template because you don't like consensus that led to it being unused. ~ RobTalk 13:16, 14 April 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:The Real Housewives of Vancouver

 * 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 12:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Completely unnecessary navbox. Only two links and only used on one of the two linked articles.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Real Housewives of Vancouver
 * 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:BS!

 * 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 12:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Not used in any articles and not part of the current WP:RDT documentation. Only mention outside a user sandbox is in the deprecated part of the transwiki guide. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 03:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BS!
 * 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).