Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3

Template:Diana Vickers

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diana Vickers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are insufficient related articles to warrant a template, and the Diana Vickers article, on which this is placed, already has templates which include these links. (Note: as created, also included an "album" but this was a link back to the artist title, and a link to a single - but that article was deleted at AfD). I42 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I42 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having enough relevant links, but with no prejudice against recreating later when there are more links to include. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. GlassCobra 19:48, 3 November 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ROI

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ROI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This flag template was recently created as an alternate to the standard Template:IRL. Both render the flag of Ireland in icon size plus a wikilink to the article at Republic of Ireland, but difference is that {{IRL}} produces a wikilink equivalent to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], whereas {{ROI}} produces the equivalent of just [[Republic of Ireland]]. The problem is that we currently have consensus for using "Ireland" to refer to the nation, even if the article is currently named Republic of Ireland. The consensus is to use "Republic of Ireland" only where there is a need to disambiguate the sovereign state from the island. Therefore, the [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] construct is wholly appropriate, and {{IRL}} should remain the standard flag template for rendering this. The only instance where "Republic of Ireland" is intended to always be used with the national flag is with respect to the national team in football, since FIFA use the "Republic of Ireland" appellation. Therefore, {{fb|IRL}} already produces Republic of Ireland (note the wikilink to the Republic of Ireland national football team article), and this construct is currently used on hundreds of articles. The use of "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the nation even in football-related articles is not appropriate and does not reflect consensus. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration for more naming discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever you think about the wikipolitical situation, whatever you think about the real-world political situation, to keep the peace there needs to be at most one such template. I have no opinion whatsoever on what that template should contain, only an opinion that forking is harmful. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the consensus does indeed currently dictate the standards described by the nominator, this should be deleted. GlassCobra 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's confusing enough for most people as it is without another template which appears unnecessary as the current templates cover the situations where a flag is required. --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 transclusion. I think it can be covered by {{Infobox Sidecarcross world championship rider}} or something else. Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The one transclusion is on its own page, so it is actually unused. The article about the most recent AMA Superbike Championship winner, Ben Spies, uses {{Infobox motorcycle rider}}, while others use {{Infobox Sidecarcross world championship rider}} or {{Infobox Former Grand Prix motorcycle rider}}. There are several other infoboxes for different racing series. I know little about motorcycle racing, but from the articles it appears that some racers compete in different categories of events (e.g., Grand Prix vs. Superbike), so basing the infoboxes on these may be problematic. I found one article about a rider with three different infoboxes, and I was just skimming. I'm not recommending anything about this particular template, but perhaps a more general discussion of this system at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycle racing would be a good idea. This could lead to either standardizing on one infobox, or if not, then making some effort to have all the applicable infoboxes placed so we don't have orphaned boxes like this one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.