Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 14 July 16 >

July 15

edit

U of Chicago 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chicago residence hall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Chicago house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two unused, overly specific templates. Given that they have been around for two years and are still unused, I can not see any likelihood of their eventual use. Arg342 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 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:PD-UA-exempt-map

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UA-exempt-map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, not even linked to (much less transcluded). Nobody but the uploader would really know about it, and I can't think of any foreseeable use. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:41, 15 July 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 American Dad! season 6 episode list

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox American Dad! season 6 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox American Dad! season 5 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox American Dad! season 4 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox American Dad! season 3 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox American Dad! season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox American Dad! season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, can't see how this would be helpful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 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 About Tamil

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox About Tamil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, unneeded (unhelpfully combines two infoboxes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 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 Austrian Bundesland

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Austrian Bundesland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned wrapper for Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 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 Road in Frankfurt am Main

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Road in Frankfurt am Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard infobox now orphaned (I replaced one usage), redundant to Template:Infobox road. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 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:For example

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) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For example (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. A hatnote. The line "For example, PAGE1" For an example, see PAGE1 [see note below] should be part of the running content text, say the follow up of a description. It cannot be an opening line of a section, let alone a hatnote, since at that point the title has not been described yet. In general, I cannot fit it anywhere in the WP:HATNOTE guideline. Replace by copyedit text. DePiep (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If we are NOT to use it as an other-article-link, this would violate good-writing because sentence fragments are not prose ... maybe poetry, in some cases, but not prose.
  2. If we are TO use it as an other-article-link, we have other templates for that, such as {{main}} and {{seealso}}.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all comments above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm trying to remember back to when this template was created. I think it was originally designed to be used in a WikiProject Manual of Style. It was never intended for use in actual articles. It was more for pointing out examples of various things discussed in the style manual. I have copied the template over to other wikis (both WMF wikis and non) for that very purpose (one corporate wiki uses it extensively), and they refer back to this one as the original, but I don't think it's a big deal if the original goes away. Out of curiosity, is the edit history still available for attribution following a deletion? I don't think so. Since the template was originally licensed as GFDL and ported as such... anyway, not a big deal to me. I just wanted to mention what the original purpose of the template was, and it sounds like the school bus article is using it inappropriately. If it is kept (and it looks like it won't be at this point) the documentation needs to be updated to reflect that original purpose. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual wording is not the fragment that DePiep wrote and OwenBlacker was concerned with. It actually generates a complete sentence: "For an example, see Example." —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for at least 6 months - I modified the documentation for the template to clearly state the intent. It might be nice to give this template a stay of execution for about months and see if it is useful or not. If it is still unused within that period, then I would agree with deleting it, even as a speedy delete if there is no usage at all (not counting school bus). —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't get the usage. Probably we need an example. Is a hatnote? I can't see why the reference to an example should be lifted out of running text into a stylistic alternation, and enveloped in a template.
        An example of the for example template... how ironic. :-) Since it's not really utilized here, the best I can do is describe one way in which I have seen it used effectively on a private corporate wiki (but could be used here in the same way perhaps). And again, remember that this is not for articles, but for sections where examples would be more likely expected (style manuals, WikiProjects, how-to's, etc.). The headings were generally active in nature (How to create a redirect page… Display an animated GIF… Create a table inside of a table… etc…). Since the heading clearly stated what the section was about, there's no confusion with regard to referencing an example before giving explanatory text. In fact, having the reader refer to the example first, helps the content make more sense (they've seen it already, now they can read about how they would do something similar). I totally agree that the reverse (e.g., School bus) isn't nearly as good as a use for the template (I suppose that you could apply it to something like "ABC Company Custom Buses", but one of the other similar templates would be much more appropriate). Did that example help?
        I realize that the concept of this template is somewhat out of the norm here on en.wiki. It may not be suited anywhere here (as opposed to a different wiki with different guidelines and style guides). But that's why I think that a short stay of deletion might be beneficial, so that we can see if updated instructions (which I started) and maybe some examples (which I could add) would help it to be used as intended. But if it's not a good fit, doesn't ever get picked up for use here, or causes more problems than it solves, then I'm fine with deletion. In short, I'm pretty neutral, but would like to see it get a chance with better docs. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I understand is that the external example pages you mention are structured differently. As you write, it proposts an active title, the sequence of content differs, the page is example-driven. I do not see any advantage to introduce a second page-structure (after the one in use here, where example-links are present too, but never at the start. In the running text, or separate in a "see also" section). So, concluding: I do not see a positive addition for such usage, more like disadvantage. Keeping it for future use is not needed. Any editor who wants to create such a alternate page build up page can reintroduce it. It then will survive with that structure. Or sink. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such as you quoted as headlines such as "How to create a redirect page", "Display an animated GIF", "Create a table inside of a table", such headlines are not allowed per WP:HEAD. Such, I do not think we would need this template.Curb Chain (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: no viable situation or example given, so I stay with my delete-proposal. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 23 July 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:Looking

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 after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replace or Redirect. A hatnote producing a vague text, while {{distinguish}} does the same job crispier. Can take up to 4 inputs, so needs an eye when replacing. DePiep (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Can you tell me why you made the TfD notice transcluded (albeit in-line)? I'd say we should not bother the articles with this distraction. After all, we'll try to make this change smoothly, without distractions or disturbances for readers. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fingers did it automatically while fixing the problem with the noinclude tag. Remove the inline declaration if you want. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. And any of the templates like {{about}} is probably more appropriate for this kind of use case, in any event. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:00, 15 July 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:RBC Roosendaal squad

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. Team is extinct. Nabla (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RBC Roosendaal squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad template for a club that is defunct since June (see main article at RBC Roosendaal for more details about the club's cancellation from the Dutch football panorama). The squad template itself should therefore no longer exist, since there is no team anymore. Angelo (talk) 02:13, 15 July 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:SpecialCategoryTOC

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.

Withdrawn. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

One transclusion which doesn't seem to actually do anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is only used once, but that's in the Special Page MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if you actually try clicking on things you'll see that it doesn't actually return any results. Whether that is a bug in the special page or a bug in the template I know not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it is a template used in a MediaWiki page. This template works, and is linked to EVERY categorized page in Wikipedia. If you click on "Categories:" at the bottom of each article's category listing you go to Special:Categories which gives you a list of every category in Wikipedia. Without this template, it would be very difficult to navigate through all the categories. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Used once in Special:Categories, but linked to EVERY categorized page in Wikipedia. Now every categorized page is linked to a special page with a deletion notice that makes it look like we don't know what we are doing! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I would no doubt have made the same mistake as Chris. But now that its purpose has been explained, this should be closed ASAP. —WFC— 20:07, 15 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_15&oldid=1138695130"