Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9[edit]

Template:Doi/10.14312/2052-4994.2013-20[edit]

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) 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused DOI template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, should have been deleted when we deleted all the cite doi templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Abilene Warriors roster[edit]

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) 02:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This indoor football team does not play anymore, so a roster template isnt needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:RMnac[edit]

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 snow keep. I'd also recommend against pursuing a name change, as it doesn't appear likely to pass. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Redundant to Template:Non-admin closure. Pppery (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pppery: This template has gone through TfD and was SNOW kept. Note the link targets are different. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)x2 I wasn't originally aware of the earlier TfD nomination, but do not wish to withdraw this, as the snow nomination was more of a challenge on the general standard of using a NAC template at all. Pppery (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep I expect another snow keep, though I'll note the previous nominator seemed to be objecting to the idea of NACs more than the template itself. But as Andy alludes to, XfD NACs and RM NACs have some different standards. Different templates allow them to link to the appropriate one. There's no inherent reason either of them need to link to anything, but I always considered a good way for the closer to implicitly assert, "I'm familiar with the rules and I've followed them." --BDD (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt closers would use those full names instead of the abbreviations. I'm not active at RM anymore, but used to be quite so. Unless consensus has changed since then, there's a general feeling that template names aren't very important, assuming they're not misleading or otherwise harmful. I would be surprised if you could get consensus for such renames—especially so if you were trying to delete the current names. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, in particular, would strongly oppose moving "Non-admin closure" to "Non-admin closure (deletion discussion)", since deletion has seemed to be the "primary topic" of sorts. Perhaps someone should then assess whether WP:TPN is out of date...? But I'd say it extends to a point, and these processes have been around for a while without issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is in no way identical or "redundant" to {{nac}}, as has already been pointed out. Not even close. Snowball's a rollin'! As for renaming, that is not necessary since it's all explained in the template documentation pages, which are right there on the template pages for all to read.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  00:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the record — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Consensus hasn't changed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep – Pointless proposal. — JFG talk 15:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Villages in East Godavari district[edit]

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 an aside, the !vote by the creator almost makes this a G7. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN - this is way too large for a navbox, and is a red link farm. Would be better suited by a category. Rschen7754 18:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing redlinks by restoring to a better version.--Vin09 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Mandals in East Godavari district is a short one which might be redirected to Template:East Godavari district. Check Template:Villages in Guntur district also.--Vin09 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, I am interested to submit few lines to stop deletion and for your consideration. I prepared this template to write all red link articles. Due to "Punjab Edit-a-thon‎ " I participated there and contributed nearly 550 articles in english language eventhough english is not my mother tongue [1] for which this template work is postponed. Now, today, I am on this work for creation some articles available in east godavari villages template. Simultaneously or meanwhile the deletion proposal is come in to picture (force). However, I am requesting the admins/officers please not to delete this template and we ([User:Vin09|Vin09]]) complete creation of articles work duly changing the red links in to blue links. J.V.R.K. PRASAD 11:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please permit me even to create stubs for the same to clear red links in a short time of span. J.V.R.K. PRASAD 12:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
My nomination for deletion still stands - if there are that many villages in this district, then why is it being served by a navbox? --Rschen7754 19:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is why we have categories. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is not a great issue, you please delete the matter which is included by me or I am also having right to delete the matter. You simply close the issue duly deleting the unnecessary matter Please do not waste your precious time for this simple issue. --J.V.R.K. PRASAD 17:12, 11 August 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:Braket[edit]

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 keep. While the result appears the same, these two templates are used for very different purposes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Braket with Template:Angle bracket.
see Talk — Christoph Päper 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support<, since {{bra}}, {{ket}}, and {{bra-ket}} will remain unchanged. But can we finish the TfD quickly? The Bra–ket notation page is littered with things like ‹The template Braket is being considered for merging.› <ψ|A‹The template Braket is being considered for merging.› |ψ> and the documentation pages are unreadable. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, after further thought. Wikipedia is many encyclopedias and each area has different needs. After reading the discussion below it seems unwise to try to merge a template needed for physics articles with a template in wide use in the humanities just because they happen to use the same character. I am also going to add "noinclude" to the braket notice. Ten days is long enough to make pages unreadable to give notice of this discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Why isn't it spelled Template:Bracket? And what is the output supposed to look like, without the huge merger notice? — Eru·tuon 02:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Bra–ket is a notation in math. I use {{angle bracket}} in linguistics articles, where angle brackets enclose examples of orthography (spelling). For instance: "The letter ⟨t⟩ in English represents the sounds [tʰ, t, ɾ, ʔ]." In linguistics, there is no vertical bar, so if the templates are merged, there will have to be an option that allows for this linguistics usage. — Eru·tuon 02:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would prefer to see {{angle bracket}} continue to exist, given it's used a lot in linguistics articles (as Erutuon mentions above) where there is never a vertical bar used with it — bra–ket notation from quantum mechanics is unfamiliar in that context. If we can set things up so that ⟨a⟩ can still be entered as {{angle bracket|a}}, then I guess {{braket}} could be used as an underlying template, much like {{infobox}} is wrapped by {{infobox settlement}} and several others, for example. Given that the contexts and uses are completely different, though, I don't see any real advantage in merging the two just because they happen both to output the ⟨ and ⟩ characters. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not very well acquainted with the use of either template, but from a quick glance at the long and contested discussions at Template talk:Angle bracket, it seems that the fact that both templates output the same characters at present is more a coincidence than anything else. Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The TfD notice is causing URL–wikilink errors and big blocks of junk text in citations in articles such as List of Sweet Blue Flowers chapters. Please suppress it. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jonesey95. The notice has made a mess of part of U as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "A mess" is putting it mildly: I came here because I was shocked by the terrible appearance of the article U. Several sections are really unreadable (please take a look). Is it standard that we expose readers, for whose sake the encyclopedia is supposed to exist, to such stuff just because we're discussing our internal affairs? It shouldn't be. Please fix. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, it is shocking, and makes the WP look like a parody of an encyclopedia. I can read U without problems, but it's really annoying. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went in and removed the {{Tfm}} template from transclusions. That fixes the problem, though I might be breaking a rule, I don't know... — Eru·tuon 19:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, nothing has been done for {{Braket}}, and there is currently an edit war going on there now over that notice. I came here from B which is in absolutely horrid state. Pinguinn 🐧 22:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here you are, all going through ridiculous hoops to circumvent the entire purpose of the {{tfm/dated}} template, which is to appear on articles. Noincluding the template is only allowed by the rules when the template is substituted (which neither of these are), and removing it is not allowed in the first place. Pppery (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any going through hoops involved, it's in following the letter of the rules, no matter what. If doing that is wreaking havoc on articles, then maybe it isn't a very good idea. All the more so if the TfD message is not fulfilling its intended purpose: getting interested editors involved. It's a formatting template and the editors that are likely to have an opinion aren't the ones that are watching the more than 1600 pages it's transcluded on, but the ones that frequent WP:MOS, WP:VPT or WP:LING. Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the {{tfm/dated}} template has been made smaller, but that doesn't significantly improve things. A sample disruption in a ref in List of Sweet Blue Flowers chapters: "[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See TfM›]]⟨NOISE⟩青い花[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See TfM›]]⟨メディア工房⟩" (in Japanese). Fuji TV. Retrieved July 13, 2009. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) — Eru·tuon 17:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely ridiculous that a table on Phonological history of French should be unreadable because all its angle brackets have this notice attached. By all means have the debate and decide on the merger but it shouldn't be showing up all over the place on ordinary pages making a mess of things. 82.4.129.255 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:CatalogueofLife species[edit]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:CatalogueofLife species with Template:Catalogue of Life.

Two little-used external link templates, with similar if not identical purpose. We have just over 300 links to sub-pages of http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/ in all, so there is potential for wider use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. "CatalogueofLife species" seems to me to have better functions, but "Catalogue of Life" is a more concise title. I'd hope that the code for the "species" template would be moved to the shorter title upon merging. Is that what you had in mind? Plantdrew (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, moving the code from "CatalogueofLife species" to the more concise "Catalogue of Life". --Fornaeffe (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:AthalianaDBs[edit]

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) 03:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused outside of stale user-space drafts. Created in 2007 by long-absent user. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • userfy Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the user's departure, better to Subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • given that it's used on multiple subpages, I think simply moving to userspace would be better. unless we are going to delete the subpages as well. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Six pages, created in 2007 - nine years ago - by the same absentee editor, and virtually untouched since. The template can be Subst: on them, while we await their deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Algae databases[edit]

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) 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template with external links to three websites, but passing them no parameters. Only 37 transclusions. If these sites have value, we'd be better with separate templates, one for each site, using a specific parameter to generate the appropriate deep link in each case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we already have {{AlgaeBase species}}, {{AlgaeBase genus}}, and so on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with targeted links, then delete Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Mfdx[edit]

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 Withdrawn by nom. On second thought, I now see no need to change the system of one template for group nominations and one for the second nominaton, even though my nominator's statement is still true. (non-admin closure) Pppery (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feature of linkling to the second (or third, or fourth, etc. )nomination for a page can already be handled by {{mfd}}. Pppery (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fotopedia projects[edit]

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; deleted as G6 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  • Deletion agreed, Fotopedia is a defunct site.Nilson Menezes
    • As you're the template's creator, I've marked it for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).

User:Neurolysis/SVGLicense[edit]

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 keep. Wrong venue. ~ Rob13Talk 20:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a user page template is supposed to be transcluded into file description pages. Leyo 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong venue This belongs at Miscelany for deletion Pppery (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is used as a template in the File namespace. That's why it listed it here. --Leyo 06:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leyo: Xfds usually go by namespace rather than use. Pppery (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, yes. I would be more interested in opinions by template experts on the suggested deletion. --Leyo 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrong venue Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[edit]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with Template:The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
There's a lot of crossover between these two navboxes. It might be that the topics could be better handled by a single navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge if feasible, quite a bit of overlap. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Zeldes, Kiki, ed. Our Bodies, Our Selves: A Course by and for Women. Boston, MA: New England Free, 1971. Print[edit]

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) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused citation template MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The work itself doesn't appear to be used as a reference. Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_9

Leave a Reply