Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 12

< April 11	April 13 >

April 12

Template:Infobox inline hockey player

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox inline hockey player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that was created in 2008 and has remained unused since then. DJSasso (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:49, 13 April 2010 (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 Album Cut

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Album Cut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which appears to be redundant to {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox album}} or something. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}}; see also the on-going discussion about the merger of those two templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:46, 12 April 2010 (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 Academy Awards small

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Academy Awards small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' unneeded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:46, 12 April 2010 (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:Arkhon Infaustus

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 per navigation box with no useful navigation Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arkhon Infaustus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template without any links (whether currently or formerly) to valid articles. While links have been removed since this edit, all of the links visible in that version either are red (articles have been deleted) or blue (articles have been redirected to the band article). Since there's nothing that this template can navigate, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (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:Men's Career Grand Slam Champion Golfers

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 No consensus to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Men's Career Grand Slam Champion Golfers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template data seems more suited for a category rather than a template, which has already been created to replace this template (Category:Men's Career Grand Slam Champion Golfers). Sottolacqua (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Categories are not a substitute for a navbox.69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're category does not contain the years they won the career grand slam nor does it contain how many they have won, which are relevant, and no category could answer them and link it to the page of relevancy.69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, tennis has the same kind of thing in this navbox Template:Tennis Career Grand Slam Champions, so it has reached consensus across wikipedia, not just in golf.69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, creating templates does not require consensus. Airplaneman ✈ 23:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with keep, although something needs to be done about Template:Men’s Career Grand Slam Champions Golfers and Template:Men's Career Grand Slam Champions Golf, which are exactly the same. I think the navbox provides helpful links to other champions' pages. I propose a redirect for those. See other templates like this at Category:Golf major championships navbox templates. Airplaneman ✈ 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it per your suggestion!69.137.120.81 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (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 Purulia Polytechnic

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 Speedy delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Purulia Polytechnic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Contents already included in the Purulia Polytechnic article, so no need for template. WOSlinker (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (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:Silly

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 keep. Amalthea 10:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears unused, non-standard and redundant with other vandalism templates. Previous TfD -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template, in substantially similar form, was discussed previously, in 2006. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how to search occurrences of a subs'ted template, which I believe this is. Only translcusions are shown in "what links here" if I'm not mistaken. Airplaneman ✈ 04:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search for the relatively distinctive opening phrase on user talk pages indicates that it has been used 282 times. The phrasing was changed in May 2007, so only uses since then would appear, and of course we can't account for users who may have removed the warning from their talk page. From the search results, the vast majority of uses are from 2007-2008, but there were some as recent as December 2009. It doesn't seem to have been used since then. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another way to search for it is to see where the monkey face is used, [1] -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a welcoming template it is one of the more friendly I have come across, looks pretty cute as well ;) I also don't quite understand the deletion rationale. Unomi (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exceptionally useful template, I have used it often, and would recommend others to use it in the first instance with vandals who seem to have a brain and are trying to be funny. I've had good results with it in years gone by when I did RC patrol, preventing vandals heading down the 1,2,3,4,blocked highway. --Dweller (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't violate anything. May not be appropriate for all vandals and may not be everyone's "style", but some people have uses for it and use it to good effect. Until there is a consensus that warnings can only use WP:WARN templates, there's no clear reason to delete this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There really does not seem to be any reason to delete this template even though I have only been an occasional use but there are times when it is the best template to use. ww2censor (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2010 (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:Hockey Canada

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hockey Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A point form "history of" list masquerading as a navbox. While Hockey Canada oversees Canada's national teams, it is not valuable to link random players, events and years together in this fashion. Massive instances of POV in naming "notable" personnel (according to who?) and in noting only tournaments that each team won rather than participated. The Lore is also riddled with POV and recentism (Crosby). It is riddled with redundant entries which only underscores how ineffective this template is as a navigational aid. Reso lute 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only things I could think of that would fit for this template would be the national teams, and that's already covered in another template. Anthony (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with both Resolute and Anthony here. It hurts to think about how much is wrong with this template. It hardly covers the scope of Hockey Canada or the Canadian national teams, and glosses over huge stretches of time and content. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone has already well stated why it needs to go. -DJSasso (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template seems to be a hodge podge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (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:Olympic Oath

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Oath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Indiscriminately links various people by a non-defining trait. Offers no navigational benefit. See also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_13#Template:Final_Olympic_torchbearers. Reso lute 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all of the people who have taken the Oath are notable. Chris (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the individuals is not what is being debated. Taking the oath, however, is not a defining characteristic and none of these individuals are notable for taking the oath. Navigation templates are not intended to group people by a trivial link. Reso lute 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is an interesting group of people that are of a common interest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a valid keep rationale. Reso lute 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-defining trait of these individuals. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is important as a list, or as a category, but not as a navigation box. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate content for a navbox. A link to the list would suffice. Airplaneman ✈ 23:18, 22 April 2010 (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:CamelBak

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. Contents already included in the CamelBak article, so no need for template. WOSlinker (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused --216.12.8.45 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2010 (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:Tfd-inline

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 Keep as trivial template which passed parameters to {{tfd|type=inline}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is no longer being used. Twinkle has been updated in this aspect. I think we can safely delete now. JokerXtreme (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the inline version of {{tfd}}. Not everyone uses Twinkle. Why confuse and inconvenience people accustomed to inserting this template and unfamiliar with the newer syntax? —David Levy 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David. I don't use that part of twinkle. Redirects are cheap. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, there's no point in redirecting. We could just keep it as it is, then. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've redone it so that it wraps around {{Tfd}} now, to keep the code centralized. I believe that's what David and Quiddity meant with "redirect to the inline version". Amalthea 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, close it as keep then. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep. It's a well known name used by real people (not just tools like Twinkle). Shouldn't force people to learn a new system of tagging if we don't have to. Dragons flight (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (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:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale old

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 per prior precedent as well as this discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Coord}}, with which the few remaining instances should be replaced prior to deletion. Most instances are on pages using {{Infobox CityRail station}}; here's a sample conversion which also puts the coordinates into the infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the difference was myself, but I'm a bit concerned by the use of a bot (The Anomebot2 (talk · contribs)) to effect a "fait accompli" here by removing around 50 instances of the template. The bot substitution was far more clumsy than Andy's example above (which I'd actually have approved of had it been presented here first, given all instances appeared in railway station articles) - I'd suggest those responsible fix the mess that has been created. Orderinchaos 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather concerning in how this was handled! The Anomebot2 is now making a mess of articles such as Canberra railway station (see the Coord in the title), I have since undone the edit and I'm not going to fix it as it didn't create the mess that has now been created. Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the messiest bot jobs I've seen for a while. :| You'd sort of think they'd plan it first, use the exemplar as a model and read the template code to ensure the new code does what the old code did (i.e. is genuinely redundant) Orderinchaos 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to fix them all, or do we need a human to run through them to fix the botched bot job? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed most of them if not all using AWB, but not sure if I got every last one. (Sorry for late response, I'm presently overseas.) Orderinchaos 07:20, 20 April 2010 (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 TMNT (2003)

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. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Five Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Four Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Three Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Three Dates/Authors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Three Dates/Writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Two Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Two Dates/Writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (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:Generic race report infobox

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 per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generic race report infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, and probably redundant to something in Category:Auto racing infobox templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All functionality of this template has been incorporated into {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}}. No longer needed. Pyrop e 11:47, 12 April 2010 (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.