Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Template:Infobox Rottnest Channel Swim Past Soloists

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) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rottnest Channel Swim Past Soloists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox. Better to use {{Infobox swimmer}} as has more options. WOSlinker (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to relate to Rottnest Channel Swim, and articles on winners of that event, such as Deane Pieters, could easily incorporate the event in an "Infobox swimmer", perhaps using a medal template or whatever. I can't see any necessity for this box. Chzz ► 18:59, 21 February 2011 (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:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 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 Erroneous nomination. Said template has never existed. Apparently the page Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1 was actually meant for discussion, but it is deleted anyway. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed, cluebot iii archive created to replace it Parrot of Doom 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean the now-speedied Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:50, 14 February 2011 (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:Middle East conflict

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) 01:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle East conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Procedural nomination on behalf of user Greyshark09 (talk · contribs), who prodded the template page with the following rationale: "This template is an old copy-paste of List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. The number of modern conflicts in the Middle East is greatly exceeding the capacity of a simple template, and this one is giving WP:WEIGHT to just few of those conflicts."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My gut says to keep it because the conflicts are notable and this seems to be appropriate use of a navbox. Since conflicts in the Middle East are likely to continue on for the foreseeable future, perhaps the conflicts can eventually be grouped by year or by decade when the navbox becomes too full. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the template is currently about conflicts in Middle East, meaning it should include all conflicts from antiquity up until today? (hundreds of conflicts, otherwise it is violating WP:WEIGHT). It is as useless as a template on people who were killed in the Middle East, with no further specifications. Unless related to a specific limited in time period, this template is not practical.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A navigation template does not require to be 100% comprehensive inclusion in order to be neutral; otherwise, we'd be unable to have templates for any complex subject without it being too large, or it having an unwieldy complicated title. For example, {{World War II}} is certainly quite big, but can never include every topic we have under its remit. Neutrality concerns can be addressed through the usual consensus/discussion; there is no inherent POV in the title of this one. Clarify it, trim it, collapse it, make it appropriately balanced through discussion, etc. - but Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no deadline. And a nav template serves a quite different purpose from a category. Chzz ► 18:51, 21 February 2011 (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 Saxophone

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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Saxophone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded {{infobox instrument}} only employed on half a dozen pages. Was tempted to T3 this but thought I'd take it to TfD for commentary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a template that's only employed on a dozen pages (up from six since I added in the other locations it was supposed to be used)?? The purpose of templates is to reduce content repetition, and lo and behold, this template contains material which would otherwise be repeated on numerous pages. Also, notably, material which is commonly subjected to good-faith erosion by drive-by editors not familiar with the difference between Sax's original saxophone designs and later additions. There is no fundamental difference between saying that this template should be removed as a hardcoded instance of {{infobox instrument}}, and that {{infobox instrument}} should be removed as a hardcoded instance of {{infobox}}. Keep. Happy‑melon 15:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Good-faith erosion" should not be tackled by obfuscating templates, and the reason we try to limit inheritance is both for simpler maintenance and ease of use (editors only need to know the syntax to one template). I don't see what's special about saxophones which warrants the use of a subclassed template compared to other instruments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? Keeping the erosion-prone information in one place where it can be more easily looked after is a perfectly good way of dealing with it; it's not the obfuscation which is protecting the content, but the centralisation. You'll note that since the template is just a wrapper with exactly the same parameter names, it has exactly the same syntax as its parent template, no need to learn anything new. There's absolutely nothing special about saxophones; there's no reason why other families of instruments couldn't centralise information in this way as well, where applicable; although I would say that it's unusual for an entire family of instruments to be created simultaneously like the saxes were. Happy‑melon 09:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a mess. "Wind Woodwind" is an inauspicious start, for example. Otherwise I agree with Happy-melon. Keep, improve. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with repairs. Time-saving infobox for all saxophone articles. My personal threshold in these and similar cases is 5; there are more than 5 saxophone articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2011 (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:National football team transwomen

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) 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National football team transwomen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a hoax. The article FIFA Transwomen's World Cup doesn't appear to ever have existed. This template is, bizarrely enough, the top ghit for "fifa transwomen world cup". — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2011 (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:Sjabloon:Laatste 16 zonder 3

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) 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sjabloon:Laatste 16 zonder 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Round16}} with parameter "3rdplace=no". — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2011 (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:Socio Águila squad

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) 01:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socio Águila squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be an under-20 team. Most of the players in the team are not notable. (This listing seems to be out-of-date.) So, no real scope for use. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2011 (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:GMA Program Lineup

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) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GMA Program Lineup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is really an unnecessary template. Looks more of a list than an actual template itself. Listcruft and duplicates the function of the List of programs broadcast by GMA Network article. -WayKurat (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly tied to current events and not even serving its purpose as a navbox when it's got entries which don't actually link anywhere. Pretty sure TV guide navboxes are generally discouraged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:56, 14 February 2011 (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:Ron Clements & John Musker Filmography

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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ron Clements & John Musker Filmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Filmography navboxes are bad. (It would be nice to have some sort of page to link to in order to strengthen this argument, either a policy/guideline or precedent, but I can't seem to find one.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (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:Uw-sandbox

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) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no purpose other than biting new users; previous discussion resulted in some ideas for change, but none have happened. We're warning people for playing in sand - totally unnecessary. A bot fixes things. See extensive rationale in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_26#Template:Uw-sandbox. It's been a few months, with no progress for the 'alternatives'...but really, I see no purpose in this warning. Chzz ► 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless warning. Those users who are playing in the sandbox probably don't realize the sandbox header is connected to a line in the article code, and can't reasonably be expected to know this beforehand. Letting them know about it on their talk page probably won't help either - often, visits to the sandbox by newbies are one-offs, and they probably won't remember this advice for any future visits, anyhow. And of course bots can replace the removed header. Any users bothering to warn newbies about this very minor misdemeanor are, quite frankly, wasting their time. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned there was consensus for deletion on the previous TfD, what with nobody apparently having explained why the rewrite actually addressed the concerns raised. This is at best pointless and at worst needlessly antagonistic rules-badgering. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not a warning I would really spend my valuable time posting, I'll say that much. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2011 (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.