Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 10 July 12 >

July 11

edit

Template:M62 Motorway

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:M62 Motorway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:M62 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that doesn't seem to have been completed. Not much use as it currently stands. WOSlinker (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I agree, and would add Template:M62 to the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper use of template namespace. --Rschen7754 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused and needless template. Dough4872 01:44, 13 July 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:Indonesian roads templates

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indonesian roads templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indonesian roads notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Template:E-toll (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Template:BHRS notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Template:TNH notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:MERS notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Imzadi 1979 → 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Template:SERS notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added by Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Doesn't really seem to be a need for a list of templates in a template. WOSlinker (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thins. There are only two templates in the list:
  • The first, {{Indonesian roads notice}}, is a warning/info notice saying a template forms part of a set of templates at WP:Indonesian roads templates, which is a redlink, it having been moved to the Template namespace on 23 October 2009 and the redirect deleted.
  • The second. {{E-toll}}, was only used in two articles, E-toll and Tangerang–Merak Toll Road‎. All it does is put "E-toll" in a different style (white text on blue background) and links to it, which is not a good way to hide a link (and I imagine is against MOS as it makes links less accessible). Thus, I've just replaced it in Tangerang–Merak Toll Road‎ with a plain link to E-toll, and in the E-toll article itself removed it completely as unnecessary.
I hope this doesn't go against TFD to make these changes to the articles, i.e. if it seems like an attempt to make a template redundant that wasn't before. I could probably have just taken the two straight to CSD but that would seem bad form to me. I've also fixed a minor error in the roads notice template to stop an extraneous close bracket appearing, but I don't imagine this affects the TFD since it's just a minor content fix.
Thus all three templates are redundant and are using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut (a category would be a better choice for, er, categorising the templates, but since there's only one instance and even that is unnecessary, there's no need for it). I've added the two mentioned to this TFD, above.
Delete all (two as nom). Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—There is a tendency in several countries' highway articles to create links to articles in this fashion. The style of the linked text is meant to invoke the formatting and styling of the text on a road sign. In a few cases, it is appropriate to have that done, but as in the US or Canada, the stylized text should be done as a graphic icon, with the link appearing in standard wikilink form after the icon. Otherwise that link is very well hidden. Additionally, there are similar roads notice templates that I'll nominate as well that follow the Malaysian example that should also be listed. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The graphic icons can be quite nice in route diagrams, infoboxes and so on. I think in the main running text they are more a hindrance than a help. At WP:COLOUR (part of MOS), it states "Overriding a link color, especially to red, is confusing and should be avoided." Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the graphics should be used in running text. In the US and Canada, these sorts of icons are used in infoboxes and junction tables only. In running text, standard wikilinks only are used. Sorry for any confusion. Imzadi 1979 → 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't meant to imply that you did. I was agreeing with you. Sorry about that. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The thing is, the ones you've listed (for Borneo and Thailand) – or rather, the templates that transclude them – seem to be used more legitimately by doing exactly what you say, having an icon and then plain text. I think they're overused myself in the leads of some articles myself (just picking some at random from the What Links Here of those templates), though have no problem with their use in tables, infoboxes etc. So I've no great desire to see the Borneo or Thailand ones deleted – I think the Indonesia one is a special case in that it lacks any kind of icon and it changes the link colour, something these neither of the other templates (or rather, the templates that transclude them) do. So, I would suggest removing the ones you added from the nom, or at least splitting into a separate nom. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Brunei and Thailand templates I've added to the nomination are notices that a template belongs in a series, used in the templates themselves. A better practice would be to add talk page banners to the templates' talk pages, not a notice to the template in noinclude tags. Imzadi 1979 → 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's true. Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more, for Singapore. Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and MFD the linked pages. --Rschen7754 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 01:46, 13 July 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:Globalize/Australia

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

The result of the discussion was redirect all to Closeapple's new {{globalise}} template, which has a parameter for country, and which can deal with different country names and abbreviations. It also puts articles into country-specific globalise categories. Some of the people that argued for keeping were merely expressing the belief that country-specific globalise tags are needed—Closeapple's implementation deals with this. Other keeps said they would not be opposed to redirecting if a version of {{globalise}} existed to deal with the different country names and categories. So the new version looks like it deals with those concerns too. delldot ∇. 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Globalize/Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also adding:

Template:Globalize/Belgium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Common law (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/EU and USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Eng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Luxembourg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Netherlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/North America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Northern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/Southern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/UK and Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalize/West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Base templates NOT being considered for deletion:

Template:Globalize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Globalizecountry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's no reason to have this as a separate template from Template:Globalizecountry. It's not easier to type {{Globalize/Australia}} compared to {{Globalizecountry|Australia}}. Redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is easier, but not easier than {{Globalize|Australia}} - which would also allow {{Globalize|Australia|Canada|Niue}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Why would I need to elaborate that several of the templates have alot of transclusions? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consolidate templates.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Redirect. Many people know these templates. Redirect them to the newer template.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone find a good way to rewrite or redirect special cases and variant wording: Have Globalizecountry/{{Globalize}} been designed to deal with things like putting "USA" and "America" and "United States" in the same category, or "United Kingdom" and "the United Kingdom" and "the UK" in the same category? Doesn't look like they have. How is {{Globalize/EU and USA}} going to be handled? {{Globalize/West}}? I don't see any handling for that in {{Globalize}}. Deleting many of these templates may make editing harder, not easier, as editors will still have to remember special style guidelines for a new parameter and won't get a red message at the top to indicate their parameter choice is wrong when they preview. It appears someone already discovered this problem; the Globalize documentation points out: "(...preferred and should be used if and when they apply) as each is customized by message and/or clean-up task force maintenance auto-categories for the applicable regions or countries or groups of countries in which viewpoint bias abuses frequently occur." The only other way to "solve" that problem, as far as I can tell, would be: create a tree of Template:Globalize/names and Template:Globalize/categories; then make the Globalize template look to see if Template:Globalize/name/{{{place}}} exists for the name and whether Template:Globalize/categories/{{{place}}} exists for the categories; otherwise use the name in the parameter, and put up a big red message of that category doesn't exist. --Closeapple (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Redirect to Template:Globalize, we can improve this target template later. No need of parameterising the target template, which country is redundant and obvious by individual article. Learns visits aw (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    If it was obvious, there would be no need for a template. Not having a parameter is the same as making the categories involved merge to several times their current size. --Closeapple (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. The specific templates provide an at-a-glance view of where exactly the article is biased towards to help potential editors globalize the content more appropriately. If the templates will be deleted, the base one needs to include an argument to specify a region. Ryankiefer (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep These separate templates put them in separate categories like Category:Canada-centric. Does/Can this happen without the separate templates? If not, the separate templates should be kept because that would mean they serve a purpose which using a single template would not. Munci (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The {{globalize}} template can be set up to allocate articles to categories on a country/region basis. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Redundant and non-standard and clutters the place up. Using the "/" switch AFAIK is unique in template usage. The common method to to have parameters after the "|" to make just one template very versatile. The {{globalize}} template can be be used to do country specific systemic bias and add it to a category. It would look like this: {{Globalize | region1 = US | region2 = EU }}. The template will shove the article in categories for the regions selected. There is no need for redirects - editors will very easily find the {{globalize}} template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with a redirect on the condition that the redirects would but would want them eventually be deleted (after editors become familiar with the "new and improved all singing all dancing" template). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to what? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep. I completely agree that currently the system is messy, redundant and needs to be fixed. But until a consensus is built around a new system that can accommodate all the aforementioned usage scenarios, various nations, states, regions, and combinations thereof, isn't talk of deletion is premature? Consider all the pages currently using these tags in good faith that would be affected. I think it's clear from the opinions above that there is currently no clear and simple solution; a new implementation may take some time. So if I may be so bold, may I suggest that we continue discussion at Template_talk:Globalize, and table talk of deletion for now? 67.188.40.34 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP is enough of a talk fest as it is without delaying a trivial deletion/redirection request. There already is a consensus for a redir at the very least. Lets get on with right here, right now. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean get on with how to fix it here, not just blasting the templates with no working replacement. I like the idea above, with having multiple regions given as parameters. However, there are going to be issues that will still need to be addressed by hand-coding some subtemplates. For example: {{Gloablizecountry|region1=United States}} needs "the United States" in text and category names. Likewise "Netherlands", and likewise "Caribbean". And how does one insure {{Globalize|region1=USA}} and {{Globalize|region1=US}} go in the same category? Right now Category:US-centric doesn't exist, Category:USA-centric does, and Category:United States-centric is a redirect. And there is no message up top warning the editor; one has to check the categories to see if anything is red. That being said, I'll bet there's a way to handle this. --Closeapple (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it would be good to fix it here before the templates are deleted. I am not an expert in template design but I think the base template is easily modified to carry out the function of the sub-templates. Other editors, who may be more experienced with templates, have commented that the sub-templates can be replace by adding a country/region parameter. It would take extra lines of coding but US, USA, US-centric, USA-centric etc would all be able to be accommodated. However, I would prefer a small set of country/region parameters for simplicity sake. Templates are able to throw up warnings if incorrect parameters are added. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate and redirect: Agree that the system could be better, but deleting them outright could cause issues somewhere (or at several places) along the line. Redirect them to a new, single template, and maybe phase out the redirects later on after encouraging use of the new template, when these fall into disuse. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, but rather than using country codes, which few editors can memorise, we should use the actual names e.g. Australia, Canada, China (rather than People Republic of China) etc. US and UK are fine. As well as countries there are regions to consider e.g. North America, West etc. I have left a comment about this deletion at Template talk:Globalize to alert users of the base template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about Template:ISO 3166 code and friends. Some names will be complicated (i.e. "China" is controversial and possibly ambiguous). "North America" shouldn't be a problem if it's capitalized correctly, because anything not otherwise modified by User:Closeapple/new/Globalize/name (see its source code) it is simply passed through; that includes things like "North America", "common law", etc. If someone is using "NorthAmerica" or "north america" later and doesn't catch that it creates a fake category, we can always add it to Globalize/name template. --Closeapple (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Part of the reason that the current system is ridiculous is that it is so damn difficult to use the regular template's syntax to specify the country. If that could be remedied, I think nobody would realistically be able to oppose this, but as it is, these templates are the best we have. Perhaps if the documentation made it clearer how to get the countries/regions and categories the editor wants (i.e. assumed that he/she is a complete idiot about syntax, which really ought to be the rule for templates more generally), that might go a long way to making things work a great deal better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockesdonkey (talk • contribs)
The version I made will take anything that matches the end of the template names, which includes several derivatives. In theory, adding an alternative name is as easy as adding another redirect, which would probably automatically benefit anyone else using those ISO 3166 templates. If you're feeling bored, go to Special:PrefixIndex/Template:ISO 3166 code A and start in. Anything in that list will render to a valid name. --Closeapple (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it should be assumed that users of the template do not understand the syntax used to create the actual template. Templates should be made for ease of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
etc.
So it looks like the bias is generally towards the Wikipedian demographic (surprise!!) but some Wikipedians less parochial than others!. Rather than having a parameter for each country there will need to be a very small subset maybe US, UK, North America, Australia. That should make the template programming and design a lot easier and will save on the number of redirects. Finally, considering that we are looking at a very small number of articles for maintenance compared to the total over all of WP we should get an easy simple solution up and running. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another suggestion. We should also have a parameter to briefly describe the problem:
{{globalise|issue(s)= The history section of the article is biased towards Australia and Zimbabwe.}}
Of course a full discussion should be made on the Talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have in mind that this proposal is not about deleting the templates in the sense of removing the purpose they serve for the project, but to replace them with a single template with parameters. For the reader, unaware of those technical details, the banner with the message would stay exactly the same way MBelgrano (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consolidate templates. Widefox (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If these can be converted to transclusions of the newer syntax (the equivalent of redirecting), that's fine. But it is disruptive and counterproductive to delete longstanding templates that have been superseded by others. Users familiar with these tags (and unfamiliar with the unified replacement) would be confused if they were to stop functioning. There is no harm in retaining them as undocumented legacy templates. —David Levy 19:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Silktork. While some of the templates are not used, that does not necessarily mean they never will. It's good to have them around for whatever reason; however, they should be merged into a new template format, similar to the one suggested by Closeapple. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not give the {{globalize}} template a "country" parameter? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend the {{globalize}} template to allow for a "country" parameter, update all the liked pages then Delete. Codf1977 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in the form of allowing countries as parameters, and keeping all the rest (template appearence, categorization, whatever) working with such parameters. As with any other complex template, the parameters available would be available at the template documentation. Of course, "country" is not to be taken verbatim: continents or world zones (such as "Europe" or "the West") can be included as well, technically they would be just another parameter like the others MBelgrano (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or substantially change [yes, I realize this is beyond the scope of the discussion] - I've always hated these templates. They litter articles which in many cases have well-written, accurate, and sourced content just because that article doesn't have 200+ sub-sections to discuss every single country in the world. Because there are few editors able and willing to add content about specific countries, these tend to persist. Because some information is simply not available in a published format, some may persist forever. This is particularly a problem in law-related articles. Ironically, most of the people adding these templates probably hale from the jurisdiction which the article is alleged to focus on to the exclusion of the rest of the world. While there are important topics in comparative law, there are just as many topics where comparison is impossible or would constitute original research. If this is kept in any form it should be 1) on the talk page, not reader facing, or 2) require the template adder to to propose a source for the allegedly missing material. General requests to improve articles should go on talk pages. Reader facing templates are warranted only where the current text is written in a biased fashion, potentially false, etc. If sources do not exist to write about other parts of the world, then idle attempts to bemoan this fact also belong on the talk page. Savidan 00:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, "the only knowledge that matters is in the US, who cares about the other countries? Who says that they actually exist? Leave alone those well-written articles about US law (the law which keeps screwing the native americans), questioning about bias and narrowness of focus is just annoying." This "argument" actually calls for the deletion of any globalize template (the "litter") and it's antagonist to the very idea behind them. It's not even a legitimate argument for the deletion of the country specific templates.--Sum (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per "OlEnglish" unless and until the correct per country categorisation and parameterization is properly implemented like= {{globalise|issue(s)= YOUR TEXT HERE TYPE THING}} as needed on the Inuit page - i do believe that some mention of what country is needed at times to clarify the situation. Moxy (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ol English Acather96 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to vote "keep" for that. You can take it for granted, if it's decided to delete a template because the same thing can be done some other way with less templates, the deletion would only be performed when such system is available and working. Nobody intends to delete the templates now and have the mess fixed somehow at some unknown point in the future MBelgrano (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The national templates are now redundant Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep US, UK and Australia. Delete the rest and replace them with {{Globalize}}. That way, the most commonly used ones are retain their own templates, while the others can use the standard template. It should be obvious anyway what country the article is biased toward, anyway.Train2104 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 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:BCAFL team

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BCAFL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All teams (other than Birmingham Lions, which is currently at Afd) that competed in this league and used this template have been deleted as non-notable. I have subst the template into the Birmingham Lions article as it was the only article using it and a number of compulsory fields were missing anyway. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:52, 11 July 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:TL Route Display

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

The result of the discussion was Delete as a well advertised prod with no objections Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TL Route Display (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL OB Route Display (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Via (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Type (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Origin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Operator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Op Hours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TL Route Destination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per consensus d'oh! talk 14:25, 11 July 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:VFA/VFL seasons

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

The result of the discussion was Keep and nominate Template:VFL Seasons for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFA/VFL seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly unused, and redundant to Template:VFL Seasons, one page: 2007 TAC Cup season links to this template, but possibly in error (I don't know much about Victorian football, but it seems a Pro/Semi-Pro coflict). EmanWilm (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2010

The template VFA/VFL seasons is probably a more accurate description of the contents. Even the title of the VFL Seasons template, which is 'VFA/VFL Seasons' would seem to confirm this. I agree that there does not need to be two templates, but would suggest that it be consolidated to "VFA/VFL seasons". If you want more input on this, I would suggest raising it at the project page - WT:AFL. Matt5AU (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Matt, should be the other way round, keep VFA/VFL seasons, delete VFL seasons. In 1990 the VFL was renamed the AFL (see {{VFL/AFL seasons}}), then some time in the late 1990s/early 2000s the VFA was renamed the VFL. The TAC Cup is a junior league and basically unrelated. The-Pope (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me, I know nothing about this league, I just went with the one with the most links, this one had 3, or 5 seasons linking to it. So, what do you think, keep this link and change the template links for the other one (they're identical) or delete this one and move the other's contents to this name? EmanWilm (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this process works. Can I now start moving the links to VFA/VFL seasons, or do I need to wait for someone to make a formal decision? Matt5AU (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We'll do this the simple way, keep this one, we'll move the links and nominate the other one. EmanWilm (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll start moving the links, it is a short list, shouldn't take too long. Matt5AU (talk) 00:00, 16 July 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.

Thai road route boxes

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lat Phrao Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Phahonyothin Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Phaya Thai Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prasoet Manukit Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sukhumvit Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single transclusion. Substitute and delete. Imzadi 1979 → 12:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete Improper use of namespace. --Rschen7754 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to delete

  • Template:Phaya Thai Road
  • Template:Lat Phrao Road
  • Template:Phahonyothin Road
  • Template:Sukhumvit Road

appear at best misguided; at worst, attacks by a troll. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely uncalled for. All four are single-use templates used only on their namesake article, and thus it makes more sense to put the content directly into the article without using templates. – TMF 15:53, 21 July 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:No One Lives Forever chronology

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No One Lives Forever chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that links only three articles that are already sufficiently linked by both ordinary links and {{Monolith games}}. Svick (talk) 10:08, 11 July 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:PBSKids Episode

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PBSKids Episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to have different template for episodes outside {{WikiProject PBSKids}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created by indefinitely blocker editor. I 'll probably speed close it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:20, 12 July 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:Regional divisions of Spain

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regional divisions of Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unused and is a copy of this page Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol. A18919 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not a template (in the sense it's not designed for transclusion or substitution). It might be that there should be a #REDIRECT at Regional divisions of Spain ({{R from alternative language}}) but my quick search seems to indicate the Spanish name is used exclusively in relevant articles. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 12 July 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:Lokomotiva Devínska Nová Ves

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lokomotiva Devínska Nová Ves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In this football squad template none of the footballers have a wikipedia article, so I think it is unnecesary. A18919 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 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:D:TNGMinorCharNav

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D:TNGMinorCharNav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should have been deleted after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Degrassi: The Next Generation characters discussion. All minor characters, and most regular characters, are listed in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters, there is no need for a character navbox, all degrassi related pages are listed in Template:Degrassi. 117Avenue (talk) 01:45, 11 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_11&oldid=1136430893"