Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19

Template:Wiktionarylang

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) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should we really link to Wiktionary editions of some language? I mean, we already link to their Wikipedia versions via {{InterWiki}} (or their Incubator version via {{Incubator}}), so I'm wondering if anything more is necessary. And if we say that linking to Wiktionary is fine, it would be unfair to leave other sister projects out. In that case, it would certainly be more useful to link to all sister projects in one place, i.e. {{InterWiki}} (I could implement that, if wanted). But that again lets me question whether it's senseful to link to a Wiktionary project from a Wikipedia article. I mean, I don't consider it likely that people are actually looking for that when reading the article, but there may be different opinions on this. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the approach of the German Wikipedia (example). It might be a bit huge to just copy it over, but the principle of it could surely be used here, too. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, pointless. It's important to remember that sisterlinks are still external links and should not simply be spammed onto articles wherever possible. A reader is incredibly unlikely to want to read the definition of a German word in German coming from the English Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a language should better link to a dictionary in the language rather than to the respective Wikipedia, I think. But merging the links to a single box could be preferrable, I guess. --Mormegil (talk) 21:11, 5 September 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) 08:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge all with Template:Sister. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:01, 14 September 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) 23:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: so we have one "unsure", one "delete", one "weak merge", and one "merge". It's not clear that would be possible to do cleanly, since {{sister}} only takes one project. The German solution is to use the equivalent of the {{sister project links}} template. Some more discussion would be helpful here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that those proposing a merge have explained why a reader might want to be linked to a dictionary article written in another language. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at French language. It is useful to link to the English-language sister project resources. It is also useful to link to French Wikipedia, since after all we are Wikipedia, and why should we not promote our other language Wikipedias? French Wikisource contains texts written in French, so might be useful too. But a link to French Wiktionary is not useful, as English Wiktionary has a mandate to cover all languages. We should instead provide a link to a "French" portal or index (or, at worst, a category) on English Wiktionary. (It seems that an attempt has been made to do so on French language, but unsuccesfully, for some reason.) Perhaps this template could be repurposed to link to a suitable entry point on English Wiktionary for users wishing to look at French words. However, if no suitable page is found (I could only find (wikt:Category:French language, which is not a very friendly entry point to Wiktionary) then delete this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:31, 20 September 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:Ships overview

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) 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ships overview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and uselessCurb Chain (talk) 05:45, 20 September 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:Shipwreck list

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) 02:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shipwreck list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused outside of user space. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 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:Audio cover rationale

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) 22:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Audio cover rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Potentially redundant to {{Non-free album cover}} ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Binksternet (talk) 12:41, 21 September 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:Barcode Recordings

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) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barcode Recordings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox which now mostly displays redlinks after Prod and AfD process. Breno ^talk 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and only 1 blue link. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:03, 19 September 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:Divbox/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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divbox/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Experimental fork of {{divbox}} which doesn't ever look to have been used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:22, 19 September 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:Cherry Bowl 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cherry Bowl navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a particularly insightful navbox. Even if the articles did exist, it would fail WP:NENAN, since only two games were played. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 2 red links (1, 2), no blue links, and 1 use (1). Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:00, 19 September 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:Cities in Connecticut with Populations over 100,000

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) 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Connecticut with Populations over 100,000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a defining characteristic, per WP:NAVBOX. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, useless, pointless. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything aboveCurb Chain (talk) 05:46, 20 September 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:David Schwimmer

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. Underpopulated navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Schwimmer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two entries —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:FILM#Navigation: "The number of blue links to related articles should be substantial enough to warrant a navigation template. For example, if a director has only made two films, each film article instead can have a 'See also' section linking to the other film article." This template is not substantial enough. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:31, 21 September 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:The Big Bang Theory episodes

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. Redundant to another template with no substantial content to merge. --RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Big Bang Theory episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary, recently created template. Redundant to {{The Big Bang Theory}} which already includes (as of this revision) links to the notable episodes for this series. Even the non-notable episodes currently at AfD could be included in the unlikely event that they survive AfD. There's simply no need for two templates. AussieLegend (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:The Big Bang Theory. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much content in the template anyway, and agree with above that there is no need for two templates doing the same thing. What would Template:The Big Bang Theory gain from a merger? It already looks to have the important episodes in it. Joel.labes (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The three episodes not included in {{The Big Bang Theory}} have been redirected as the result of the AfD and have been removed from this template, which is now no longer being used in any articles. Merging is unnecessary as all content in the template is already included in {{The Big Bang Theory}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 27 September 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:VCU Rams football season navigational box

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) 02:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VCU Rams football season navigational box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. It's a navbox that (a) only has one link on it, (b) said link will undoubtedly be deleted per this AfD discussion, and (c) this is a navbox for a club sport at a college which is not notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the above is a nomination, not a comment. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 red link (1), 1 blue link (use 1), 1 use (1 at AfD). Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 18:57, 19 September 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.