Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28

GAC Team Brackets

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) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GAC4TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GAC6TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GAC8TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three templates appear to be versions of {{4TeamBracket}}, {{6TeamBracket}}, and {{8TeamBracket}}, specifically intended for use on tournaments of the Great American Conference. There appears be no specific need of anything special for the Great American Conference tournaments, and no reason why those tournament brackets can't be constructed with the available, pre-existing generic bracket templates. I have replaced all instances of the nominated templates with their generic counterparts. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Duplicative, redundant and duplicative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 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:Albanians infobox

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) 04:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albanians infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused fork of infobox in the Albanians article. 70.250.124.96 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 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:August 2011 US

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) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:August 2011 US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not even sure of the point of this. Where would it even go? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 4 December 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:CFB navbox

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 with {{navbox}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of {{navbox}} which developed in parallel to it and has continued to live on past the point where its separation is a good idea (editprotected requests are being raised to keep the two codebases aligned, for instance). Existing transclusions can be trivially substituted to produce exactly the same output; future potential transclusions can use {{navbox}} directly and thus editors do not need to internally keep track of two slightly different syntaxes and feature sets. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It definitely makes sense to migrate uses of {{CFB navbox}} to {{navbox}}, as the former is indeed redundant. My concern is how that migration will be executed. Will each of the templates using CFB navbox have been manually edited to use navbox instead? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Add me to the list of editors who want to know what the consequences will be of deleting this template that serves as the underlying code for almost 6,500 existing navboxes? If these 6,500 navboxes have to be manually edited to deal with the consequences of deleting the "CFB navbox" template, that's an awful lot of work so we can have uniform template coding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The figure is actually about 750 navboxes. 6,500 is the total number of tranclusions. But that could still be a good deal of work if this requires a manual transition. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Template:CBB navbox is almost identical to Template:CFB navbox. The two should be considered together here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why a link to this discussion showing in the navbox area for Tommy Amaker.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, because {{Michigan Wolverines basketball coach navbox}} and many others employ the nominated template, and the Tfd notice cascades all the way up...to a vast number of college coaching bio articles. Hopefully, this well get resolved and cleaned up quickly. Alternatively, is it kosher to noinclude the tfd template? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm in favor of eliminating redundancy but we have to be careful not to "break" anything. This almost calls for a temporary "project" to pull this off.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm anxiously awaiting a merger execution plan from the nominator. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these are very useful and informative guides; they shouldn't be disturbed in any way that degrades them, even temporarily. Replacing with other programming is OK if it can be done simply and without problems, or over time individually, but they shouldn't be disrupted for sake of change that isn't visible on the face of the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanternLight (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 November 2011‎

As I seem to remember explaining previously in these circumstances, deletion will be performed by substituting the existing examples, probably in an automated manner. There will be zero impact to existing transclusions, and editors need not concern themselves with the method used to orphan the current code (it'll be done by the closing admin). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great then; I'd never seen that explained elsewhere, and thus wished to voice a valid concern (which appears to be addressed). Superb.LanternLight (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CFB navbox is not redundant, but far inferior to navbox. It was developed at a time and as a fork to navbox when colorizing the title bar and the vde links was not possible, or generally desirable by the mass users of navbox. Now that the production and fork of CFB navbox has served it purposes and been merged in navbox, we can merge all uses and then delete CFB navbox. MECU≈talk 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can an adminsitrator please <noinclude></noinclude> the TfD template on the template in question? The deletion notification is registering for templates that aren't being conisdered, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Article alerts to see.
Delete Redundant. Must be replaced by {{navbox}}.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before any steps get taken to replace this with the generalized navbox, if that does happen, I'd like to point out that this should be a multi-nom TfD along with {{CBB navbox}}, which is the same thing but used by WikiProject College Basketball. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy with {{navbox}}. {{CBB navbox}} should be deleted as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard Navbox template will do instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment once this nomination is coomplete & assuming it's a delete. The following also need nominating as a group. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{CBB navbox}}
- {{NBA navbox}}
- {{NFL navbox}}
- {{NHL navbox}}

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.