Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 12

 &lt; May 11 May 13 &gt;

Template:Page banner

 * 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) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC) unused, appears to have been copied from the FR wiki, but non-standard here Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Page banner


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Frietjes
 * I attempted to transfer it, but I found it challenging. I wish I could receive assistance from someone knowledgeable in technical matters. Riad Salih (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Riad Salih what are you wanting to do with it? SWinxy (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @SWinxy as I said "I wish I could receive assistance from someone knowledgeable in technical matters". Riad Salih (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2023 (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:US sow stall ban map

 * 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. Izno (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Single use template. Substitute, then delete. Bsherr (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * US sow stall ban map
 * Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (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:Editnotices/Page/Watergate scandal

 * 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, without prejudice to a near-future speedy deletion (G6) should WP:AE resolve as removed. Izno (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This is no longer a contentious topic under post-1992 American politics. There hasn't been any disruptive editing that would qualify under the procedure. Interstellarity (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Editnotices/Page/Watergate scandal
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:AP2. While I understand the nominator's concerns, the relevant arbitration motion explicitly notes that [a]ny sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected. This editnotice serves to notify the page's editors of an explicit sanction authorized under the prior DS regime, but that sanction remains in force.
 * If you wish to appeal this sanction or request its removal, please talk to the admin who imposed it, ask for it to be modified by making a request at WP:AE, or file a request for clarification. However, we cannot delete this editnotice at TfD, even if we (the community) believe that there hasn't been any disruptive editing that would qualify under the procedure, because that indefinite restriction is still in force until it is successfully appealed. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see a WP:SKCRIT that would apply here, but I agree that nominating an edit notice at TfD is not the right way to request the removal of a discretionary sanction. Red-tailed hawk's recommended process looks right to me. --Bsherr (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2023 (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:Bogdablock

 * 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. Izno (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This is just bizarre. As far as I can tell, the committee did not ask for this template, but ArbComBlock, which is used pretty consistently now, was not created until 2010. There are no recent uses of this template, the topic area has long since calmed down and the underlying real-world incident has faded into memory. It is unlikely anyone will ever be blocked pursuant to a nearly 18-year-old case, and naming other blocked accounts in a block notice is one of the stranger and more innapropriate things I have seen around here. In short: this no longer serves any real purpose for the project, and is badly out of step with current best practices. Deleting it seems the best option.
 * Bogdablock

I suppose it might make sense to replace all transclusions of it with the arbcom block template but it probably doesn't make any difference at this point. From what I have gleaned most of these accounts were WP:SPA throwaway accounts anyway.

Noting for the record it did survive a previous batch nomination in 2006: Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 23 Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any preference to subst or not substing it? Izno (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. But it can be substed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To my mind these shoukd just be arbcom blocks, as that is what they are, but really it probably doesn't matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2023 (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 Supremes timeline table start

 * 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. Izno (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) subst and delete: only used on one article, no need for a template. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Supremes timeline table start
 * Keep: No substitution is in place; is consistent with The Beatles timeline. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Subst/delete or merge with similar Beatles template If there is a requirement for this (which is doubtful IMO) I'm left wondering why we need a The Supremes timeline table start and a The Beatles timeline table start (and perhaps many others) which are nearly identical when surely the whole point of templates is to provide a generic way of doing things. Nigej (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, merging is a good idea. If all the timeline table start templates are merged, all the timeline rule templates also merged, and all the timeline event templates even merged too, then I give my support for this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (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 Supremes timeline rule

 * 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. Izno (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) subst and delete: only used on one article, no need for a template. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Supremes timeline rule
 * Keep: No substitution is in place; is consistent with The Beatles timeline. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Subst/delete or merge with similar Beatles template per above. Nigej (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, merging is a good idea. If all the timeline table start templates are merged, all the timeline rule templates also merged, and all the timeline event templates even merged too, then I give my support for this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (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 Supremes timeline event

 * 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. Izno (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) subst and delete: only used on one article, no need for a template. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Supremes timeline event
 * Keep: No substitution is in place; is consistent with The Beatles timeline. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Subst/delete or merge with similar Beatles template per above. Nigej (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, merging is a good idea. If all the timeline table start templates are merged, all the timeline rule templates also merged, and all the timeline event templates even merged too, then I give my support for this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2023 (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).