Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16

Template:Nottingham Outlaws roster

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) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nottingham Outlaws roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was used on a single article devoted to UK university team (which is itself of debatable notability). Little scope for template to be used on any other articles. Have replaced single transclusion with subst. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:47, 16 May 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:Mureş County

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 Modify to form linked at the bottom of this discussion, which is basically "delete the dual language version". Note that this issue has been discussed before (see May 12, May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26), but in those cases the issue was having two footer templates, one "single language" and one "dual language". The decisions there were to remove the "dual language" version, and only keep navigation links that match the article names. Hence, this decision is basically the same as the prior decisions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mureş County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Comment - The deletion request mainly refers to the bilingual subtemplate since we already have Hungarian names in this list [1], so it is "double redundant".iadrian (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a unique template crumpled with alternative names. There isn`t any template on wikipedia that folows that pattern. Mureş conty is in Romania. Since that is the case there is no need for the Hungarian alternative names for those places to be included in the templates. I am referring to the "in Hungarian" part of the template that makes this a unique bilingual template. Also this looks like a clear case of WP:POVFORK. iadrian (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I see is a naming/content dispute, which is not a sufficient reason to delete the template entirely. All references to the Hungarian names can be removed once there is consensus to a resolution to the dispute. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree, but the user who created this template ignores the WP:PLACE and how the templates should "look" and refuses to make those changes so i candidate them for deletion. When deleted i`l make a new template, one according to wiki naming policy and like the rest of templates. There is no particular reason that only this one to be special.iadrian (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Iadrian yu raises an issue which was thorougly discussed and decided upon in a previous discussion earlier this year, here

Discussion on Mures (Maros) Megye bilingual template)
The decision was that there is no prejudice against one bilingual template. The template in question brings the names first in Romanian, and as an option the reader can open the Hungarian part as well. Similar decision were made in the following cases earlier thi year. In every instance, the consensus was that there is no need for separate templates for official and alternate names, but alternate names may be put into the existing template. [2]
(Trencsén District)
(Dunaszerdahely district)
(Tőketerebes district)
The summary was this: Consensus of responders is that this template (separate template with including Hungarian names-remark by Rokarudi) should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives." As to the Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places, we must add that paricipants supporting Iadrian you were permanently blocked sock-puppet editor Umumu and zero edit Amon Koth Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You must understand that what you are saying has nothing to do with wiki rules. That was a debate where the conclusion was "nothing against bilingual template", nothing binding, on the other hand we have wiki rule that clearly states that your template is agains WP:NAME and WP:PLACE, that is binding. Just to mention that this is not your first misunderstanding and violation of this rules, this where an administrator clearly stated that your edits are in violation with WP:NAME and WP:PLACE. iadrian (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These templates you are saying were deleted as a result of redundancy.

(Dunaszerdahely district)
(Tőketerebes district)
iadrian (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi's opinion (summary):

According to Wiki deletion guidelines, a template may be deleted if it contains completely or largely redundant information to a better designed template, or if it violates naming conventions. This template is a better designed one than the similar template recently created by Iadrian yu. This template gives enough prominence to Romanian placenames as they are in the permanently opened part of the template while the Hungarian placenames are placed into a separate autocollapsed part of the template. Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists, and navigation templates. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). There are dozens of exonym lists which contain alternative placenames together with the official ones. (ie.List of Székely settlements and German exonyms (Transylvania)) Templates and lists are not more than methods of organizing information, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

The real subject of discussion here is whether Hungarian placenames are acceptable or not in a template for a territory which is not the part of Hungary, but has a sizable Hungarian minority (40% in the county). In the light of the above, I feel that a template containing exonyms for a territory with a sizable minority and relatively widespread use in English sources can be admitted, as it is consistent with the naming rules. Of course, its concrete use in articles may not be POV, excessive or creating an impression that Mures county is more Hungarian than Romanian or it belongs to Hungary etc. The argument that the Hungarian names are and shall only be placed in the individual articles is not decisive, as templates and articles are not the same thing, a template is only a method of organizing information, here grouping alternative exonyms for those interested for navigation purposes. Templates, do not alter the articles unless used excessively. The Hungarian part of the templatesis only one line in the footer. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will repeat, You must understand that what you are saying has nothing to do with wiki rules. We have wiki rule that clearly states that your template is agains WP:NAME and WP:PLACE, that is binding. Just to mention that this is not your first misunderstanding and violation of this rules, this where an administrator clearly stated that your edits are in violation with WP:NAME and WP:PLACE. There also we had to explain it to you this rules that you refuse to acknowledge.iadrian (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAME and WP:PLACE are the naming conventions for article titles. It is not possible for a template to violate these rules, and therefore they should not be cited as grounds for deleting any template. If an editor is trying to change the article names themselves to a different language, then that could be against policy, but creating a template that lists both the actual article name and the name of a redirect in another language is not inherently a problem. That said, I don't have the knowledge to say whether listing the alternative names is actually helpful for navigation, so I neither support nor oppose the deletion of this particular template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. The grounds are that this kind of template is unique and redundant. There isn`t any other template on Wikipedia that is bilingual therefore there is no reason for this one too. This template has included alternative names(in Hugarian language) that are not useful to the English Wikipedia for navigation or anything else. iadrian (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 12#Template:Komárom (Komarno) District. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 14 May 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) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment This probably could be been decided based on similar TFD discussions from May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26. However, I thought I would make sure there wasn't anything different about this particular situation. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scarcity of tolerant attitude of Iadrian yu towards Hungarians is no reason for deleting a template that contains relevant alternative names.--Nmate (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a encyclopedia not some toll to show certain "felling" one might have toward something, as some Hungarian users use it for promoting Hungarian names in inappropriate places like this template and with that express some form of irredentism over the lands that once made a part of Kingdom of Hungary. This is a unique and redundant template that has no place on wikipedia and the only purpose of it to promote the Hungarian minority, no Wikipedia usage at all. Please restrain yourself from personal attacks, all you had to say is something about some user, no valid arguments why should this template exist in this form.iadrian (talk)
Keep - whether Hungarian names are kept or not, the template itself serves a valuable navigation purpose. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an English Wikipedia therefore this kind of use of alternative names is useless to the English reading users. On the Hungarian Wikipedia is a valuable navigation tool not here. This template is unique to all Wikipedia, there are no bilingual templates even in Switzerland with four official languages why should Romania be any different(with one official language) just because of some nationalistic feelings some members of the Hungarian minority might have. Bare in mind that this template would be replaced with a normal one that has only basic information to serve the perfect navigational needs, no alternative names crumpled up. iadrian (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, templates should not contain alternative names. Second, Hungarian names are not relevant, in templates, in the English Wikipedia. Only English names (if available) or Romanian names should be used for terms that refer to Romania. If someone is interested about the Hungarian name of a city/town/commune then that someone could easily open that place's page and see the alternative names there. Scooter20 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I told my opinion as to the merit of the issue before, so I would like to comment mainly on the problem raised by Plastikspork. There have been several discussions up to now which had as their object the same or a similar problem. The most comprehensive one was the January 26 discussion, while February 4, and February 25 were decided mutatis mutandis with reference thereto. The January 26 discussion was about the following: There used to be Template:Mureş County containing only official Romanian names. Additionally, bilingual Template:Maros (Mureş) County was created which contained both Romanian and Hungarian names that appeared side-by-side. The decision was to delete it as the second template was redundant to the already existing one. Consensus was so summarized that Romanian is the official language for the area, but several, sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality, support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. (Template:Komárom (Komarno) District belongs to this type of discussion as that bilingual template is additonal to another monolingual template.) The template we are talking about now is the very same Template:Mureş County as modified according to January 26 by adding a collapsible Hungarian section thereto. In the January 26 discussion, most neutral editors viewed that two templates are not needed to cover the same topic, without excluding one template containing both information.My opinion is that the appearance of Hungarian names in a template is not a naming but a content dispute. Hungarian placenames in the Székely Land geographical-ethnographical area with a population of almost 700.000 Székely Hungarians (representing 40% in Mures, 75% in Covasna, 85% in Harghita county) is a relevant information regardless political considerations e.g. the Romanian government grants or not official status for the Hungarian language locally and to what extent. Anyone can check that Hungarian toponyms represent a significant part of all English language references for these places. e.g. in historical studies, the History of Transylvania is one of the best available hand-books on the net. The contrarian opinion which asserts that Hungarian placenames for Tranylvania are basically useless info for English-speakers is usually supported by non-native speakers. In response to Iadrian yu's comments on asumed political motivations, the template gives more prominence to Romanian placenames than to Hungarian ones. As to his paralels, unlike in Eastern-Europe, the usual Western-European practice is to leave settlements under the name which is used by the majority of their inhabitants, and this is the reason why such problems does not arise today with the Basque Country, Swedes in Finland, South-Tirol or the Aoste valley. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a unique template crumpled with alternative names. There isn`t any template on wikipedia that folows that pattern. Mureş conty is in Romania. Since that is the case there is no need for the Hungarian alternative names for those places to be included in the templates. "Székely Land" don`t exist even as a geographical area not to mention more that this is another indicator for something else. Some Hungarian users like Rokarudi see Wikipedia as a "battleground" to express their irredentism feelings. Hungarian nameplaces are useless for the English Wikipedia and there is no prevalence of Hungarian alternate names since it is used by a minority(19.6% of the total population the rest of 7+ million and the rest of the world uses the official ones-Romanian names). Taken a compact area as Rokarudi tries to do, almost every country has areas that are inhabited by the minorities. I think that Rokarudi`s comment/vote proves again that for him Wikipedia is just a toll for expressing his irredentism feelings over this matter. Isn`t it strange that targets for his revisionist edits are just places that once belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary? If the real reason is as he claims for so-called better navigations why don`t include German,Slavic or Turkish toponyms? Because from the German,Slavic or Turkish POV the prevalence is on their nameplaces. By the same logic, let`s implement alternative names in templates for every territory that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire or to the German Third Reich? The reason is clearly an ethnic one.I doubt that Hungarian names are used in history books more often (maybe in Hungary), but nevertheless that is not the problem we have here, we are talking about usage in modern - present time were Hungarian names have no special status from the German/Slavic/Jewish or Turkish ones. History of Transylvania is written by Hungarians about history of Transylvania that was administrated by the Hungarian authority - of course they will use Hungarian names there. We are not living in the history anymore, we are talking about usage in modern - present time. You are trying to force Hungarian names by the official ones for parts of the present day Romania - that has no logic. Mures county is in Romania therefore in templates we should use only official names, not alternative ones by it. There is no need for this template to be special and unique to all Wikipedia, to implement bilingualism in a country with one official language just because some members of the Hungarian minority fells insecure. PS: Basque Country, Swedes in Finland, South-Tirol or the Aoste valley - All of this places are either political entities and/or have recognized other official languages which is not the case in Transylvania.iadrian (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no comparable case with Switzerland templates and lists where the locality names are represented only in one language: just on of local majority people. So if we use that rule we cannot represent in a lot of places in Mures county their Romanian name in the template. I think this form isn't troublesome for enwiki users but helpful those who know a locality name one-sided only. See the traffic statistics of articles. Aakmaros (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously, against WP:NCGN rules on English Wikipedia. Only English names (if available) or Romanian names should be used for terms that refer to an official administrative division from Romania. See Multiple local names or Use modern names. (Rgvis (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete for several reasons:

1) A template is mainly used for organizing and navigating data, and should contain short, descriptive names, providing the generic English-speaking users (English Wikipedia, of course) with relevant information.

2) After almost a decade of Wikipedia, the usage of bilingual templates in a similar situation is nonexistent, even in cases where it would be less controversial (official language status, autonomous administrative division, high percentage of minorities etc). As such, Wikipedia offers empirical data which suggests that the usage of such a template is inappropriate.

3) The Hungarian names have limited to no usage in the current English-speaking media being used almost exclusively by the Hungarian-speaking population which have a Hungarian Wikipedia where such a template could, probably, be more useful.

4) This is an English Encyclopedia and regardless of nationalistic connotations there is some content that just doesn't have a place. Adding redundant information which detracts from the quality of this Encyclopedia just because it can be added is not a plausible excuse. Amon Koth (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot was told by the Romanian colleagues on what a template has to/should/is to be. Can anyone of you show a concrete guideline or at least advice supporting your view that a template should not contain alternative names or exonyms? I found only one material relating templates without imposing any such prohibition: Wikipedia:Navigation templates. All that has been said is the application to this disussion purposes the general view that in public usage Hungarian placenames can never have equal or close to equal treatment with Romanian names. Its funny to see how much non-native speaker editors are anxious to protect the English character of en wikipedia, as I do not see great numbers of native speakers participating in this discussion and even less of them advocating for the exclusive use of Romanian placenames. I have the impression that for the average native speaker it is all the same whether Mures County template contains or not alternative names used by a majority/strong minority of local Hungarians so long as the template doen not become an eyesore and may be used for practical purposes. Unless participants stop repeating and repeating politically motivated arguments, this discussion will be decided not by arguments but by the mere number of available co-national voters. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in having such a thing. It is not offensive to anyone. There is no overlap in the information provided as the input is different. More tolerance, less nationalistic zeal could save a lot of energy.--87.101.114.248 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, less nationalistic zeal and there wouldn`t be any template like this to discuss about. Before Rokarudi`s edits everything was OK. "Support" that even you show toward your co-patriots here. Please present some real argument that are relevant to the Wikipedia why should exist this kind of special templates just for some parts of Romania? As we can see in some previous examples the result was Delete here. Also whole this template looks like a clear case of WP:POVFORK. iadrian (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Amon Koth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.204.65 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a template remains modified like this [3] i would like to retract the deletion request since that was the whole idea, to delete this template because one user insisted on special templates in Romania and Slovakia and afterwards to replace it with a normal one. iadrian (talk) 09:48, 22 May 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:FA Cup 2007-08

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) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA Cup 2007-08 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transcluded on one page, and even then just to repeat information from the article. In any case, this type of template could not be transcluded to club articles without flooding them with hundreds of navboxes (think how many times some of those teams will have reached the latter stages of cup competitions). Jameboy (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is now a useless template. – Pee Jay 21:52, 21 May 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:Solent Redhawks roster

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 there is already a roster in the parent article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solent Redhawks roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Template. Only likely to be of use on a single article Pit-yacker (talk) 22:31, 16 May 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:Original Soundtracks 1

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. delldot ∇. 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original Soundtracks 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three songs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as every U2 album of original material has its own template. Use of the templates was per a discussion on Talk:U2. It navigates, presently, 3 songs and the preceding and subsequent albums in addition to its namesake. Each studio album has a template that links to preceding and subsequent studio albums. Taking out this one would break sequence and treat the album as somewhat discarded. While it is under "other albums" in {{U2}} it is the only one there to be entirely original material. Would 4 songs be enough? Perhaps i can persuade one of the great writers there to make "Always Forever Now" since they have all the reference material. delirious & lost ☯ ^{is there a time for keeping your head down} 18:49, 16 May 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) 22:28, 16 May 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:Newvfdfull

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) 05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old VFD template, which might or might not have been used at some point, but is now redundant to {{Oldafd}} and {{Oldafdfull}} and should be deleted to ensure consistent formatting. There's no need to keep it for old revisions of a talk page, because every talk page it has once been on should have an {{Oldafd}} or {{Oldafdfull}} on the most recent revision. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:25, 16 May 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:Postvfd

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) 05:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old template from VFD that's been made redundant by {{Oldafd}} and {{Oldafdfull}}. There's currently a reasoning on the template page which says why this should be kept, but there are flaws in there: It's right that there might be certain pages where you can't see the template's content in the history, but that doesn't matter. Every talk page where such a template once has been should now have a {{Oldafd}} or {{Oldafdfull}}, over which people are able to find deletion discussion without any need to check the history. There's one remaining use left, but it's easy to replace this one. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Just make certain it's not in use and doesn't break anything. --AllyUnion (talk) 17:50, 17 May 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:Drmvfd1

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) 05:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drmvfd1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Formerly used as a talk page notice for VFDs, now redundant to {{Uw-afd}}, which is as a substituted talk page template also unused. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:12, 16 May 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:On VFD

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 after replacement Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:On VFD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been used like 5 or 6 times since creation, and is not likely to get any further usage, because VFD has been renamed to AFD and {{On AFD}} already exists. The few existing uses can easily be substituted. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:58, 16 May 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:Vfdvoting

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) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once used some times in 2005, now redundant to new methode. We have an editnotice that appears on every AfD and {{Not a ballot}} which deals with socks. Thus, substitute the few remaining uses on AfDs, and then delete to avoid further usage. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:54, 16 May 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:Rogue VfD debate

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) 00:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rogue VfD debate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old template for a page that was never used and is completely redundant to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Should be deleted to make sure people don't use this. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 16 May 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:Wikiref

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 after conversion to standard {{Harvard citation}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in one article, mixed with Cite references. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:40, 16 May 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:Amar Choudhury Films

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amar Choudhury Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates one film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 16 May 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:Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury Films

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 16 May 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:Anjan Dutta Films

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 04:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anjan Dutta Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 16 May 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:Haranath Chakraborty Films

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. delldot ∇. 04:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Haranath Chakraborty Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty there, if you don't like the redlinks, then remove them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:33, 27 May 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:Hook

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) 05:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Hook target (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on one Wikipedia page; yet another fork of {{ref}}/{{note}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this appears to be different, can't this be used for internal linkages to non-header places? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you can do with Ref/Note? Or an internal link? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment an internal link is [[#x]] which points to ===x=== requiring a header. If I did it in HTML I could just drop an anchor into the middle of nowhere. This hook/hook target appears to be able to do the same with wikimarkup (templates). Ref/Note is named in such a way that using it so will make many editors think you've made serious errors if you used it in such a manner. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could create the anchor with {{anchor}}, a highly used template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Forgot about that. Sorry. Yeah, this is redundant with {{anchor}}. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 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:Raj Chakraborty Films

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 04:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Raj Chakraborty Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 16 May 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:Noboru Tanaka

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noboru Tanaka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Didn't we go through this with a dozen such directors a couple months ago?... Major, prolific (or should I say "notable") director. The only reason there are only three films on the template are that 1) too few editors are working on adding content rather than removing it, and 2) the time limitations of those who do add content. Since this is Sunday, and we're planning on laying around the house for part of the day, I'll add a film article or two. Dekkappai (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now has ~~four~~ five films. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, the template should meet whatever random lower-limit has been decided upon, WP now has two more articles on Japanese softcore porn masterpieces for the sphincter-clinchers to piss & moan about, and time I could have instead spent working on articles on mainstream Japanese or silent film has been used adding them. Everybody should be happy now. Dekkappai (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently nobody pays attention to these things, and they just default to Delete. I'd like to point out, however, that the reason for the nomination-- 3 films-- is now invalid. There are 5 films on the template. I believe that is considered satisfactory for a template. If it is not, someone drop me a line and I'll add as many as needed. Tanaka was a major, prolific director and has several more films deserving of articles. I'd hope the nominator would withdraw this discussion now, and that he notify me before putting another template on a Japanese director up for deletion. This needless process can then be avoided. Dekkappai (talk) 13:19, 17 May 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:Riingo Banerjee Films

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Riingo Banerjee Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 16 May 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:Pittsburgh Penguins staff

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) 05:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsburgh Penguins staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been around for a few years, yet is only used on one of the pages of said staff, which implies not likely to be used. Its only other transcluded use is on Pittsburgh Penguins, where it can (and should) easily be prose-ified, as article content should not be included in templates. Schmloof (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it rather useless, and against WP:HOCKEY policy on templates, it is rather arbitrary. At one point do you cut off the definition of Penguins' staff? The NHL Record Book lists a full half-page of staff for each team, including characters like team dentist and doctor, etc. They are staff, and just as important to the team as the others. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kaiser. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What's next, a template covering all the Pittsburgh Penguins players wearing #7? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 16 May 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.