Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 26



Template:Lee Unkrich

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Only two films ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lee Unkrich
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Once he directs more films, this can be recreated. — Mythdon 09:10, 29 September 2018 (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:Wikipedia CD selection

 * 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 merge to Template:WP1.0 with WPCD=yes &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC) This is a template associated with a now-defunct wikiproject: WPCD. I came across it on a talk page. I don't see the point in keeping this- all that it does these days is clutter up the templates at the top of the associated talk pages. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Wikipedia CD selection
 *  Keep . The CD selection was made, and is still available. This template indicates that an article was included in the selection. It's an important milestone in the history of an article. Because the project is currently inactive, it should be reworded so that it doesn't contain the advice it does now, however. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, perhaps this template should be merged into Template:Article history. --Izno (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but reword The part saying it may be used in the CD is no longer needed. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  22:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete In all seriousness, I don't think my kids have ever (or will ever) owned a CD and while they might vaguely recognise one, it's certainly not common currency. The page is ten years out of date. For example, Hyde Park, London is listed, but the 2018 version is 2.5 times the size of the 2008 revision, and is also now a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into  per . Worthless outside of the historical-milestone perspective.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 00:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support  merge. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Merge into  since it is of historical note. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Template:Article history for the abovementioned reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See my response to below. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge seems like a reasonable way to unobtrusively retain the relevant metadata. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A possible alternative merge target is, which already exists, and would keep all the 'release' metadata in one place. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, is a superior target. Support that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Template is of an inactive WikiProject. Any articles that were included in Wikipedia CD Selection have probably been so substantially edited within the past 10 years that further detracts from this template's usefulness. This templates therefore serves as no more than an advertisement, albeit not in the same sense one would usually call an advertisement. — Mythdon 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ping everyone who commented before TheDraagonFire's suggestion of merging to WP1.0, so that we can get more consideration of whether the template should be merged, and if so which target is better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with merging to either; mine was just a suggestion above that people seized on. :) Slight preference for WP1.0 since I would guess those are similarly targeted templates. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merging to . I think you're right about it being a better candidate than . Thanks for the ping! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On an aside, WP1.0 already has a parameter for the CD. So, it's really just a question of ensuring that template is used and that parameter is filled. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merging to . Makes sense to me.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 20:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. So to me, I agree it looks better to merge to Template:WP1.0, but that parameter specifically references the 2006 CD release, and not the two subsequent releases. So modification would be required of that template. But I'm not familiar enough with the work of the 1.0 project to know whether this is consistent with their use of this template or not. Is there someone who can speak authoritatively to this? --Bsherr (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess merging it to would be fine.  But I'm not familiar enough with the way these templates work to be definitive on it, so don't take my opinion with a strong weight to it.  Jip Orlando (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to with the WPCD tag enabled.  caknuck  ° needs to be running more often  07:30, 6 October 2018 (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).

Module:Location map/data

 * 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 deletion. (CSD G7) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC) The page was inadvertently created and was blanked by the author because the existence of the page makes the documentation subpage generate many errors. This is a speedy delete db-author request per discussion at User talk:BrandonXLF which includes comment Special:Diff/861144140 by the author indicating that tagging the page for deletion is tricky. I didn't want to put a tag on the doc page because it seems to have some magic purpose that I don't want to take time to investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Location map/data
 * Speedy Delete G7 per nom. Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G7 as author. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  12:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Would an administrator kindly delete this module under WP:CSD G7, but not the documentation subpage? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, not the documentation subpages, or any subpages for that matter. Only Module:Location map/data, nothing else. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  19:52, 26 September 2018 (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).