Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

Template:Infobox local1

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, but some consensus to rename the template, or merge the functionality with another template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox local1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Described as a test, and a localised fork of the deleted {{Infobox nrhp2}}; and thus indirectly a fork of {{Infobox nrhp}}. If kept, should be renamed and better documented, and converted to use {{Infobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the number of transclusions, I'd guess that the documentation is simply wrong. Agree that the template should be better documented (and possibly moved/merged into another template). The use of "local1" is particularly painful in a monospace font. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate and Delete: Less than 100 transclusions, compared to the much better documented and used ibox nrhp (over 35000 transclusions) leads me to suggest deletion is in accord. Even if there are some things which are highlighted in local1 which aren't used in nhrp, that suggests that nhrp should be updated and not that we should keep local1. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with User:MZMcBride. The template is currently used also by local LA and Chicago landmarks that are not on the NRHP. It should be expanded to include other local and state landmarks that are not on the NRHP. Also there is need for an infobox for Canadian national, provincial and local historic sites. clariosophic (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Can you give examples, please, and say why alternative infoboxes are not suitable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MZ and Clariosophic. The infobox allows customized use for landmarks that are not on the NRHP, such as CHLs. Killiondude (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This probably wouldn't have been nominated if it had a sensible name and proper documentation. If editors wish for it to actually be used, then those things should be addressed ASAP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would probably still have nominated it, as a fork of {{Infobox nrhp}}. Why could they not be merged? My question, above, asking why alternative infoboxes are not suitable, still applies, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most states have an official landmark program so it would be beneficial to have a standard infobox to use for those articles. It does need to have better documentation. Epolk (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2012 (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:Screenshot requested

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) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Screenshot requested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are more specific templates available.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this debate results in deletion, the closing admin should delete Category:Wikipedia requested screenshots under G8. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (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:Mylo Xyloto

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mylo Xyloto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Again with the templates for albums... Pointless template. All articles for the album seem to just have been created for the fact of this template. — Status {^talk_contribs 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the album, tour, four singles which have legitimate articles, and two live EPs, I can see this actually being useful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have thought because of the number of articles for things relating directly to Mylo Xyloto, a template documenting the album would have been necessary. I mean, isn't that why templates were concieved in the first place? To provide links to articles documenting the album? I mean, we can't keep on adding everything to Template:Coldplay singles! Especially if half of the articles are not documenting actual singles!—RazorEyeEdits (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this template only seems necessary because articles were created for nearly every track from the album, including non-notable non-singles that have only been covered by independent reliable sources when reviewing the album. There doesn't seem to be anything to justify the existence of the non-single song articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:Coldplay and Template:Coldplay singles already cover the notable articles. I redirected six songs that were created without pass the WP:N and/or WP:NSONGS criteria. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Keep As the songs listed here have articles with notable chart(s), the template now has a function. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Have you looked at the "source"? None of them support what they are saying. — Status {^talk_contribs 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The same templates have been created and deleted for Rihanna, Beyonce and Kanye West who had a lot more articles in their templates. Coldplay is no exception. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just removed 5 redirects from this template and a non existent EP. 6 links were added to make it look bigger than what it was to avoid deletion. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Beyonce cannot have template for 4, then why should this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are Calvin and Jivesh's arguments invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFGOTDELETED ? ~Crazytales (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me why it should stay? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (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:WikiProject Albemarle 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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Albemarle County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 23 January 2012 (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:Casting

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one transclusion, simply makes a table. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete single use template. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strictly oppose, because this template makes listing to be much less awkward, more clear and nice. Also, current level of template usage couldn't be a problem, because applying this template in as much movie articles as you can is not a big deal but makes stuff nicer. So, keep. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some significant opposition to using a template for casting tables already? This seems like a perfectly sensible approach. It certainly shouldn't be substituted anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a standard 'class="wikitable"' table and delete this one. There is no reason why a standard wikitable wouldn't work here, and that is what is used by almost all other film articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (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:Malaysian Economy

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malaysian Economy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to the more updated and widely used Template:Economy of Malaysia. — Bl ue 。 05:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Economy of Malaysia}} 70.24.245.198 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (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:Hercules no Eikō series

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) 05:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hercules no Eikō series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only links to two articles. The rest redirect to the series page, which suggests that a navbox is not needed. Izno (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (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.