Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12

Template:Fingers

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) 09:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant. Links to other fingers are provided by {{Human regional anatomy}} already present in all ~~five~~ six articles. Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally added this section at the bottom of the page where apparently no one saw it, and now moved it to the top. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. The thumb isn't even a finger, anyway. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:21, 18 June 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 History of Doctor Who

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) 04:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox History of Doctor Who (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template mainly consists of red-links. WOSlinker (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually created this infobox for a proposed new format for the Doctor Who history pages. However, the new format was never implemented due to a lack of consensus in WP:Doctor Who, and I kind of forgot about the infobox afterwards, so it can be deleted without any real trouble. --DaveJB (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the redlinks to go to the user subpage articles, and now my only real qualm is that I personally don't like how it looks. If you're planning to move the articles to the mainspace at some point, then I suggest you keep it and move the template into your user subspace for now and revamp the way it looks. Otherwise Speedy Delete. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 17:11, 18 June 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:Penthouse Pets of 1971

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 with no consensus concerning a per decade merger. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1971 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1976 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1977 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1983 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1984 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1985 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes including only one active link, therefore useless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Unless we're going to delete the templates for every year and not just these selected ones, I don't see the point. If the links don't lead to articles at present, they could in the future... Valrith (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navboxes link related articles; when most of the navebox is redlinked, then it fails the intent. Others in this series are at TfD. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Either we should delete all the templates in this series or none. Some, such as Template:Penthouse Pets of 2007, are almost 100% bluelinks, and there's no justification for deleting those. There's really no justification for deleting the nominated set either, especially not because they currently have a lot of redlinks, which will not necessarily be true in the future. I'd accept as an alternative turning any redlinks into plaintext, though this defeats the purpose of having WP:REDLINKs, which are a benefit to the encyclopedia, regardless of where they are found -- navboxes or otherwise.--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge all of these using {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13/year * 40+ years = more than 500 playmates. A bit much, even in a collapsible template.--Father Goose (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. These templates were created at a time when Penthouse Pets were considered automatically notable under WP:PORNBIO. That guideline has been tightened up considerably; while some changes have been controversial, there is general acceptance of the removal of the automatic notability for Penthouse Pets. Quite a few articles have been deleted; and it's been quite some time since any article has been created for a nonrecent Pet. These collections of redlinks will serve mostly to misdirect readers to newer articles on subjects who share the often-common names. It would be an improvement to delete the full set of navboxes, leaving the relevant category in place to more usefully serve the same purposes; my thought in nominating the groups was to eliminate the ones that aren't functional navboxes first, then have a discussion on whether the remaining few are worth maintaining. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems redundant to List of Penthouse Pets of the Month, which could be dropped as a link in each article that does exist. If any individual templates are to be kept, I propose merging by decade as a variation on User:Gadget850's comment above. bd2412 T 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation templates that are almost entirely redlinks are useless, since the entire point of such templates is to help readers navigate to the related articles. That there may be some other templates on similar subject matter that are not filled with redlinks is not a good argument for keeping these templates in particular. --RL0919 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 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:Gol Gohar

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) 04:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gol Gohar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links two articles and a category. Not a particularly useful navbox. Jameboy (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 18:21, 12 June 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:Japanese nationalism

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) 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese nationalism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which has been dormant for three years; contains unaddressed redlinks which have been present since 2005. bd2412 T 17:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete: This template seems to have been rendered completely unnecessary by Template:JapanEmpireNavbox.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:27, 12 June 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:Broken/Infobox road/OK/...

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) 09:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broken/Infobox road/OK/shield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Broken/Infobox road/OK/link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Broken/Infobox road/OK/abbrev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & appears to be in the wrong place as well. WOSlinker (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have joined the three templates into one discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – continuing the cleanup of the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 13 June 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:Latest preview software release/Safari

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Safari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apple doesn't generally have pre-release versions of its software so it isn't useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Safari version history article lists numerous public betas. This template is meant to display such versions and their release dates in the infobox on Safari (web browser).
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:20, 12 June 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 Iowa Highway multiple

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 per prior discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Iowa Highway multiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All uses have recently been replaced with the updated {{Infobox road}} template to provide more consistency between articles. WOSlinker (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that the main infobox overhaul has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 12 June 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 Arkansas Highway multiple

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 per prior discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arkansas Highway multiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All uses have recently been replaced with the updated {{Infobox road}} template to provide more consistency between articles. WOSlinker (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that the main infobox overhaul has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 12 June 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 Oklahoma Highway 2

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 per prior discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oklahoma Highway 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All uses have recently been replaced with the updated {{Infobox road}} template to provide more consistency between articles. WOSlinker (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that the main infobox overhaul has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 12 June 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:Start srbox fl

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) 09:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start srbox fl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that duplicates {{start srbox}}. Imzadi 1979 → 09:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, redundant template. -- LJ ↗ 19:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 00:58, 13 June 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 Trondheim tramway station

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) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Trondheim tramway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox station}}, with which the few instances were recently replaced. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed the conversions per prior discussion, where there was some consensus for replacement if a suitable replacement could be identified. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Superseded infobox. - Darwinek (talk) 21:06, 12 June 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 GO Transit rail

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) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GO Transit rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which appears to be redundant to {{Infobox station}} or {{Infobox rail line}} or ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this about three years ago, but the files on which it was used have been updated in the past few months to use the templates indicated above. Mind matrix 22:45, 16 June 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:BLP unverified

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) 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unverified (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a badly worded (or just badly thought out) template. The vast majority of biographies of living people on Wikipedia have an earlier version that contained some unverified content; usually, that's why that content was removed. That doesn't mean we should draw attention to it and encourage people to re-add it.

I'm not really sure what this template is intended for, to be honest. It seems to imply that all unverified material about living people should be removed on sight, which is not strictly policy; but if it's meant to be used only for contentious material, it doesn't make sense either. If you see poorly sourced, dubious information in a BLP, either source it or remove it, but don't remove it and then add a template inviting other people to restore it! Robofish (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One obvious case for using the template is when one needs to stub an article quickly in response to a OTRS complaint or other problem. It's severe to pull out every unsourced statement solely on the basis of it being unsourced, but at the same time, in such cases one has to act decisively. So you leave behind a record of "stuff I didn't have time to check" while getting the problem off the article page right away.
Having that record is important; taking care of the problem quickly is important. Using this template in such cases addresses both needs. Without it, stuff that's probably-true-but-we-didn't-have-time-to-check-it would disappear into the article history without editors being aware that there is material that still needs to be checked and probably restored.
Ultimately the template is an alternative to the common behavior of "moving unverified stuff to the talk page pending confirmation". This is commendable editorial behavior in a number of cases regarding BLPs, and the template simply facilitates it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cases of this should be rare enough to warrant individual messages on talk pages. It's not really the purpose of a talk banner. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's on the talk page doesn't mean it's a "talk banner". It has its purpose and deleting the template will not somehow improve its purpose.--Father Goose (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely useful in the sort of situations FG discusses. It's also relevant when someone has already removed possibly usable material if it were sourced, and it is apppropriate to call attention to it. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Father Goose asked me to comment since I was supportive of the idea of creating a template that draws attention to the article history where potentially usable material has been removed. I see this as a good tool to use in situations where clean up work is needed of material that need sources. This template highlights the removed content so that someone else can take a go at finding sources for it. Not needed in all article clean up but it can be a useful tool in some situations. An example might be where an editor adds updated content about new employment on a BLP and despite the best efforts looking on the internet, no independent reliable source is found to support the content. Removing the material and then drawing attention to this on the talk page would be good so that other editors would know where to find it in the history and give encouragement to continue the search. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:05, 19 June 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.