Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

edit

Template:Fenerbahçe SK Harington Cup 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fenerbahçe SK Harington Cup Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary - only two articles linked exist in English Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted, because this throphy is a milestone of Turkish Football History and even Turkish Independence War. This football players are like heroes for Fenerbahçe Fans and Turkish People. Gökhan Tığ (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet only two of these players have articles in English Wikipedia. I'm not proposing deleting the article on the cup itself - though that is in a terrible state - merely this template which appears to be pretty redundant.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:21, 7 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:Cold War by year

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) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cold War by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've never seen templates that link to categories rather than articles, and this one has a lot of red-linked categories. Seems like the categories can just use the {{Year by category}} template instead. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:47, 6 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:Infobox statue

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 No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox artwork}}; only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see a whole lot of parameters in "statue" that don't appear in the "artwork" documentation, like Built for, Demolished, Rebuilt, Restored, Restored by, Inaugurated, Architect, Architectural style, Cost, and a map window. Many of those are sculpture-specific parameters and are not applicable to two-dimensional artworks such as paintings, etchings or print. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 9 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:POV-check-section

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-check-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have added section parameters to three main maintenance templates. Now that the main templates have support for sections, these individual section templates are fairly redundant to the main templates. I would like to propose that:

I second this proposal. Especially since these templates are relatively seldom used, and the usage of a |section parameter is widely spread. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment section templates are supposed to look like:
So... redirecting doesn't serve that purpose, an intermediate transclude that sets that up should though. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean somewhat like {{POV-section}}? Actually, are you sure that an intermediate transclude is necessary for it to work? That is definitely what I wanted to be the effect of a redirect. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other way to specify that it uses the section appearance instead of the regular appearance, that I know of, unless you add handling code in POV template to detect "section" and then specify that it look like a section template. Which when some section templates were merged and deleted earlier, no one bothered to add into the main templates... so an intermediate transclude would be easier to maintain. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transclude or keep I don't care, but editors should be able to use these alternative section pseudonyms. There has been perpetual motion between combining and splitting these sorts of templates, which suggests that at least some people find it easier to add " section" or "-section" than "|section". In fact in some cases we deliberately migrate in the opposite direction. A consistent approach would be nice, but that's for an RFC I think. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 21 December 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, Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 6 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:Talk Page Notify

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk Page Notify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#January_4 about {{Vandalism-high-risk}}. This was created after I nominated that one for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:02, 6 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:Openness

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 07:30, 20 December 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, Ruslik_Zero 15:56, 6 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:Six60

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 No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Six60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one album with two singles--hardly navigates anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:28, 6 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:Infobox World Road Running

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Road Running (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 6 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:Infobox German location

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 Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Infobox settlement}}. It's not acceptable to have instances such as that on Schorndorf, with parameter names in German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:48, 6 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:Infobox YouTube video

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox YouTube video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:47, 6 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:Infobox british speedway

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 speedy delete per G2. mabdul 13:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox british speedway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

looks like a copy-and-paste editing test. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 6 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:Infobox canadian election

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox canadian election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

articles are using template:infobox election, not this one. Frietjes (talk) 00:45, 6 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:Infobox psalm

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused infobox. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 6 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:Infobox settlement/ukr

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement/ukr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused wrapper for template:infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 6 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:Infobox St. John's Neighbourhoods

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox St. John's Neighbourhoods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and probably redundant to template:infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 00:28, 6 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:Infobox Simpsons animal

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 Speedily deleted. Ruslik_Zero 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons animal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to template:infobox character. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 6 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:Georgian Kingdom Royal Style

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian Kingdom Royal Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It uses a generic unreferenced style for every single ruler of Georgia, Kartli, Kakheti, and Imereti which would be better off mentioned on the article itself with accurate and reliable sources like in Tamar of Georgia#Feudal monarchy or George III of Georgia#Title which both bolster the fact that there was no generic title or royal style for the monarchs of Georgia. And the coat of arms represents the Bagrationi dynasty before the 17/18th century not anyone before that period. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with removing this title from pages of kings who where not kings of all Georgia, I am against removing the coat of arms. This is the present coat of arms of the dynasty and consequently represents all monarchs from the dynasty. Whether it was created in the 17th century or yesterday should not make a difference. Your example of using Flag of Egypt to represent Ancient Egyptians is a very bad example because flag of Egypt is not a flag of an uninterrupted, ancient royal house like Bagrationi. Also, as far as I know, Alfred the Great and Queen Elizabeth are not from the same royal dynasty.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what anachronism is? This coats of arms only represent the current dynasty; it can be used to represent people and places that existed before its existent.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the biggest problem is the unreferenced generic style, not the coat of arms. George III is "The Most High King Giorgi, by the will of our Lord, King of Kings of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians, Kakhetians and the Armenians, Shirvanshah and Shahanshah and Master of all the East and the West" while Tamar is identified as "by the will of God, King of Kings and Queen of Queens of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Arranians, Kakhetians, and Armenians; Shirvanshah and Shahanshah; Autocrat of all the East and the West, Glory of the World and Faith; Champion of the Messiah." This shows that Georgian titles and styles were never set in stone like this template would want us to believe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bagrationi is the same dynasty it was centuries ago and this is the coat of arms they have presently. This is not someone's personal or familial coat of arms. This is the coat of arms that we would apply to any king of Bagrationi, unless there is a different, clearly-identified coat of arms or a personal seal for each individual king, which will be difficult to find for medieval monarchs. And primitive sketches by Vakhushti do not count as coat of arms.--Andriabenia (talk) 09:54, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_6&oldid=1143537287"