Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 15

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

July 15

edit


Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

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 to delete the template, but also no real consensus concerning which articles should be linked in the template. Clearly, simply having a blank template with no navigation is not useful. However, there seems to be a general consensus that in most cases one would not have links that don't lead to independent articles. However, since many of the aviators that would be linked in this template are notable for being involved in "first accidents", there is a feeling that we can ignore some guidelines in this particular case, but not in the general set of templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

empty template (policy is that only entries with an independent article are listed). Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nominator is correct. TF policy is to only have links in templates to aviation accidents and incidents with their own article, not to notable people who died in crashes, redirects, or to non-existent pages aka redlinks. 1900-09 was early in the history of aviation. Articles that would meet TF criteria don't exist at the moment and unlikely to do so at some point in the future....William 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Lebaudy République (1909) is a relevant article that could be included in this template just like the French airship Dixmude (1923) or the USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) (1925) in their respective templates. However, it is also possible to give 1909 its own template back and delete this one.--Countakeshi (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore entries As WilliamJE pointed out, this was very early in the history of aviation. Incidents which would not be notable today were notable in regards to aviation history at the time. Because of this, there should be an exception to only include links to incidents with their own article. There were very notable subjects in this template, such as the Langley Aerodrome which was a flying machine which failed days before the Wright Brothers did it. Thomas Etholen Selfridge who was the first person to die in a crash of a powered airplane (which also was being flown by Orville Wright). Eugène Lefebvre was the first person to die while piloting a powered plane. Ferdinand Ferber was a major influence on the development of aviation. The airship Lebaudy République crashed and killed 4 crew, likely one of the deadliest aviation accidents at the time.Michael5046 (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It isn't the policy of the TF on accidents and incidents to put persons in the templates, whether they are aviators or persons killed in plane crashes. Here are two posts on what are supposed[1] to be in the templates including one[2] on this very issue. When accident articles are made into redirects to the type of aircraft, the accident is taken out of the template. The template isn't for aircraft for either.
    • These templates are must like this list where independent articles are required and where links to lists of accidents by type of aircraft aren't allowed. Again the criteria were set[3]
I don't see any "criteria of the task force" or "task force policy", just posts by you. Like I already said, aviation accidents from the 1900s can't be compared to what would be newsworthy or applicable today. The examples of persons I listed are not about them, but the accidents they died in. Michael5046 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) I don't see a clear expression of the Aviation accident task force - or WPAviation project - policy in the given links to discussion on the matter. 2) Wikipedia wide consensus is generally considered to overule project-specific policies. 3) If the navbox serves the purpose of moving the reader between related content, what good does deletion do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2012 (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) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is a case where WP:IAR comes before a task force's policy. It may be usual policy to restrict these navboxes to incidents with their own articles, but in this case it seems logical to make an exception; there aren't yet any articles specifically on air crashes to include, but there are several articles on aircraft and people involved in crashes which it seems useful to link together. The template should be restored to its earlier version. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I support keep as well, so long as the links are restored. my issue was that it should either be deleted, or restored to its previous form, not simply blanked. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the understanding it is used to link to articles where notable accidents are covered and not just to any Tom, Dick or Harriet who died in an aviation accident. More specifically that the accident content is significant eg (Thomas Etholen Selfridge) and not a passing mention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely to be any articles in this time frame to link to, it is meant to be to navigate between accident articles not vague mentions in other articles. Certainly not about individuals who may have died in an aviation accident. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 18 July 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:Game rationale

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover. WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates identifies it as "older style". It was substituted, not transcluded, so there is no need to merge. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I note that the similar {{Logo rationale}} was nominated last year (2011 May 15) without consensus; some editors preferred to keep the template which requires substitution, as this allows the wording to be easily customised. I am not persuaded by this, as there is always the option to substitute a template even if it does not require it, after which the text can be customised in just the same way. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a newer, not an older style, so I've modified WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates, and left a note on the talk page. Otherwise, this is a useful template, which isn't especially complex, so when substituted, it's straightforward to customize. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all games are video games. Are you suggesting that board game covers or computer game covers should use a video game rationale? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; like other templates for video games which used to be named just "game…", this template has always been for video games. This template transcludes {{Non-free game cover}}, which has just been moved to {{Non-free video game cover}} but was always about video games. If the nominated template is kept, I would move it to "Video game rationale" anyway. I have no objection to creating a new template for board games; in fact I would favour this. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My fault. I should have checked this better. I only had access to a 70 mm phone screen when I wrote the above, and it is then easy to overlook something. I also support renaming the template to avoid ambiguity. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Selket Talk 19:45, 15 July 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:NewRFAvote

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) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

appears unrelated to WP:RFA. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 15 July 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:Ongoing conflicts image updates

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) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing conflicts image updates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

probably used to post messages on user talk pages at one point in time. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 15 July 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:Post

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) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to {{edit}} with |section=new. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 15 July 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:Offnic

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) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and most likely replaced by a different template. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 15 July 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:Pd image

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) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pd image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 15 July 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:Tlold

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) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to {{oldid}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 15 July 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:Polyhedra 2001

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) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polyhedra 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 15 July 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:Red bib athl

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) 03:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red bib athl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not used in any articles, and we already have many {{colorbox}}/{{legend}} templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 15 July 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.
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) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If interwiki link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 15 July 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:Prarticle

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) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 15 July 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.
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) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused outside of userspace. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the uses of this should be {{coord}} for vendor plurality? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 16 July 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:Rfact

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) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to {{fact}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 15 July 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:Rtl-lang test

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 moved to Template:Rtl-lang/sandbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rtl-lang test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old template test. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 15 July 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:Neweuc

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 move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

no longer used since Wikipedia:European Union collaboration is inactive. could move to a subpage of that project. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 15 July 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:Leadquote

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) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to one of the many other quotation templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 15 July 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:RD-best

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, there seems to be no strong objection to adding this feature to "icon". If that works, then feel free to renominate this template, since it would then be redundant. If that feature is not added, then there appears to be no consensus to delete this template (although it has almost never been used for some reason). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RD-best (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and could be replaced by {{icon|fp}} or just add a new item to {{icon}} if you really need it. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 15 July 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:Mirror thread

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) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mirror thread (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mirror no bot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mirror box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Reflect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to be part of an "expired" bot proposal (see also Wikipedia:Mirror threads). given that the op has been indefinitely prohibited from using automation tools (e.g., see block of User:Femto Bot), it seems as though this will not be used for an indefinite period of time. we could userfy them in case the restrictions are lifted. see also prior deletion of mirror me. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 15 July 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.
Er these were used Rich Farmbrough, 09:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Other Hazardous Materials Labels

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) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other Hazardous Materials Labels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template provides a table used in a single article. The table has been easily replicated there. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:58, 15 July 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:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil

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) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another Maxtremus-template with all relevant links still in Portugese. By now, a useless template. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:05, 15 July 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:NK Primorje 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Primorje squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NK Primorje was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 19 July 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:NK Drava Ptuj 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Drava Ptuj squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NK Drava Ptuj was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 19 July 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:İZBAN color

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) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:İZBAN color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 15 July 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:Žerar Grize

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; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Žerar Grize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, which looks like article content Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 15 July 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:Barnstar of National Merit

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) 19:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barnstar of National Merit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be deleted and Template:The Barnstar of National Merit should be moved. The latter is advertised at WP:* and thus this template is obsolete/redundant. mabdul 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards informed. mabdul 13:01, 15 July 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:Big Brother (U.S.)-Manual of 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 move to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother (U.S.)-Manual of Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insanely garish documentation which should be placed in projectspace and linked to rather than transcluded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would a move to the project space and linked to be okay? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:44, 19 July 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:Big Brother UK sidebar

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 merge, the editors expressing the opinion to keep the template appear to be objecting to removing the information from the articles, and the editors wanting the template to be deleted, appear to be objecting to "single use" templates. Merging the templates into a multipurpose infobox/sidebar would address both issues. If a merger turns out to not be feasible, or if there are still problems with the merged infobox/sidebar, that can be address either on the talk page of the merged template, or in a follow-up discussion here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother UK sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Brother U.S. sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roadies sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pinoy Big Brother sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bigg Boss sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Celebrity Big Brother UK sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Brother Indonesia sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Brother AU sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Brother Brazil sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Quasi-infoboxes used on only one article each. Should be reformatted as a proper {{infobox}}, stripped of cruft and substituted into the respective articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. No actual content will change at all. The content in these templates is simply being merged with the pages that include it, as these are only used on one page each. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I meant, "will a single infobox be used for all international editions of Big Brother?" Unreal7 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried several times to use {{infobox}} but each time I can't but all the information that are contained in the infoboxes listed above with the main {{infobox}}. If you would explain how I would gladly switch them all over to the main infobox without losing content. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started converting {{Big Brother U.S. sidebar}}. It may be that some sub-templates will need to be created. I'm happy to do this work myself, and if this closes as a delete the closing admin should feel free to leave the templates alone and I'll clean them up myself before substitution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to create an all-in-one template for the past couple of years. I have been trying to emulate {{Infobox animanga}} where each part is "sandwiched" between a header and footer. Like one module would contain all the necessary information needed from {{Infobox television}} such as production, broadcast then have a module for the presenters, companion shows, seasons/winners that way all the necessary information is included while only using one template for all articles. I am still inexperienced with templates and this is why it has taken a long time for me to construct a more productive template. I guess I should ask for help lol. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made one – Template:Infobox Big Brother sidebar Unreal7 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template looks like a duplicate of Template:Big Brother endgame ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:11, 27 July 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:Fcite

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 to delete, but there is consensus that this should be kept as a testbed, for helping to improve existing citation templates, and not deployed in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fcite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite fast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcitation needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite press release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fcite web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vcitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates and the associated ANI thread. Fork of the existing citation system to optimise it, based on the author's personal research into page load times. Consensus is that the author should instead attempt to optimse the existing templates, rather than trying to boil the ocean by "fixing" individual articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep from author: This TfD is for a group of templates, loosely unrelated, except it suggests to delete all various citation templates which I have created in the past 11 days. Specifically, the outsider Template:Vcitation is a separate issue, intended to expand the family of Template:Vcite (Vancouver-style citations) to always set "ref=harv" to link author names to book/journal cites, as similar to Template:Citation. Most of the above templates (with prefix "Fcite-") are fast-cite versions of the Template:Cite_web or Template:Cite_book (etc.), created as add-on templates which allow showing the same output as them, but 5-6x times faster, for use primarily in large articles where reformat speed (>7 seconds) is an issue (due to 200-400 Cite_web templates using 12-24 seconds to reformat). There is no consensus to "instead attempt to optimse the existing templates" because logically, the Fcite templates are already so much faster than the others could be improved. This effort has been a long road, and after 3 years of discussing Template:Citation/core, it is clear that major speed improvements have been hindered by all the alias parameters piled into there (and used by various groups of "3,000" or "9,000" articles choosing one alias over another). Meanwhile, the current Fcite templates are absolutely "lightning fast" and better than the early release versions, which met with some opposition because the templates were "too lite" in omitting 2nd author-name parameters which disabled author-name links for related footnote Template:Harvnb. The early versions also had format glitches, but have been fixed to better match the older {Cite_web} templates. Hence, at this point, others have suggested 2 options:
  1. Improve Fcite templates (with more options) for use mainly in slow articles.
  2. Expand the Fcite templates to totally replace Cite_web or Cite_book as 4-5x faster.
Currently, the 2nd option (totally replace Cite_web, etc. by redirecting them) seems unlikely because expanding the Fcite templates to handle all options would very likely slow them towards a snail's pace as well. Another danger, noted by several users, is the problem of "wp:Avoid template creep", which over the years, has added numerous minor features into Template:Citation/core, year after year, trending toward slower template operation. By keeping the Fcite templates as, primarily, fast "lite templates" then they would be more resistant to the 'creeping featurism' of ever-more slower options being added. Thus, by defining "Fcite" as always "fast-citation" then those templates can be maintained, long-term, as extremely fast, while allowing the basic older Template:Citation/core to still add rare, exotic options which might slow use. However, there is overall hope, because each week, as the Fcite templates are refined, then small improvements are discovered to apply to Template:Citation/core, to run a little faster, but never 5-6x faster as with Fcite. Anyway, people now, finally, have a choice: fast and lite with fewer options, or numerous options while slower. That is the status in the young 11-day life of these new, promising fast templates. That is why I advise "Strong keep". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For years, people have tried to improve the existing Template:Citation/core, but it is just too big and too slow. Meanwhile, the Fcite templates are a faster version of the same, not a fork, although early versions (last week) failed to match the format, and Fcite now closely matches the {Cite_web}, {Cite_book} and {Cite_journal} formats. -Wikid77 06:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should not be forking existing templates and confusing users with which ones to use. If there is a problem with the existing templates then we should be modifying these templates and providing the speed of operation for all usages. Keith D (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above and the VP discussion, a fork of these complex & essential templates would cause no end of problems. If they can be improved without breaking their functionality then improve the existing templates. If it can only be done by chopping features then it should not be done, as that would force users time and again to work out which is best, the old 'slow' and the smaller 'fast'. These templates are hard enough to use as it is. We don't need something to make them an order of magnitude harder.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And close early for bad procedure I'd say. Nom is throwing this TfD in while the discussion at VPT is running. Nom already announced this TfD at VPT when it was only a few days in discussion and way before any conclusion was in sight (not even now). Why not wait for a result? Nom does not communicate there: Between their TfD announcement (08:03, 12 July 2012) and this TfD 11:11, 15 July 2012, three full days, nom has "contributed" nothing (but another TfD announcement/threat).
I note that a TfD threat, as we are talking here, is demotivating editors. I find this behaviour unhelpfull, and not constructive, from the nom.
Chris Cunningham/Thumperward is too formalistic again. We should wait for the discussion outcome, and editors improvements (especially User:wikid77). I still do not get why nom Chris Cunningham//Thumperward is behaving this way. Not constructive it is, why am I to AGF? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring the very odd personal attacks, the reason I took this to TfD was actually as a good-faith measure to ensure the community agreed. My original intention was simply to userfy them directly, given the overwhelming consensus that their deployment was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal attacks from DePiep, but rather a series of negative remarks, which question the timing of this TfD, against a spirit of collaborative work. We senior scientists have certain protocols, and deleting templates under discussion can appear like burning books during review. However, I was a formal debate judge for years, and many people often mistake remarks as being "personal attacks" when they are directly addressing "behaviour" rather than a person's character. -Wikid77 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, thank you for emphasizing WP:CITEVAR, because while the format differences were not intended, the positions of parameters had been wildly different until Fcite templates were changed to comply with CITEVAR. I did not realize the shocking format differences until they were fixed. -Wikid77 12:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? You'd be alright with just userfying and salting? I thought you'd want the disks wiped with the strongest algorithm available, then ground up and the particles spread about. Having the templates available going forward does not cause harm. Impending deployment is a moot point because of the first word, impending. It is not deployed, and we do currently have an issue. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and harmless experiment. Use sparingly where traffic is high and standard templates causing significant issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a harmless experiment, as demonstrated by the ANI thread which kicked this all off. It actively reduces consistency and adds to editor confusion for a gain which still hasn't been properly quantified and which is far better addressed using methods other than simply de-featurising the citation system. (FWIW, this was some predictable canvassing by the template author, whose most prominent idiosyncracy is the amount of time he spends on Jimbo's talk page.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As demonstrated by the ANI, it is clearly harmless. Also please note that arguing that we should delete a template because someone frequents my talk page is not a very compelling argument (ad hominem fallacy, addressing the character of the person rather than the content of the argument).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "hominem" part was "most prominent idiosyncracy is the amount of time he spends on Jimbo's talk page" as opposed to noting, "Wikid77 is a highly experienced computer scientist with 2 degrees in the field". See the difference? -Wikid77 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have more degrees than a thermometer, myself; in several fields, a meadow and two pastures. Anyone can claim anything about their "real lives;" it's the internet, and many people do not use their real names. That you canvassed, though, well that's verifiable. pablo 14:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cf Essjay controversy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy's "vote" was extensively canvassed by the template creator and is not properly informed. These templates are actively disruptive to the norms of citation and are deficient in any usage. The proper targets for improvement are the standard templates. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one person can be "extensively canvassed" but I did canvass several editors who strongly disliked the template, who offered suggestions for improvement. Knowing that Jimbo was neutral to the idea (while busy on other issues), I merely suggested he watch this TfD. Remember, per WP:CANVAS, the concern is "improper canvassing" but canvassing of many editors is allowed, so long as the contact is "proportionate" and I do intend to contact supporters rather than so many negative or neutral. -Wikid77 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pull the other one. you gonna badger everyone opining delete and make sure your text amounts to half the text in this debate? (ya, you are;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are deficient, you are free to help fix them. Claiming they are improper targets for improvement is both a difficult position to defend and most unhelpful to this discussion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the other deletes. They say it all. And no this isn't a harmless experiment.PumpkinSky talk 09:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forking the templates was beyond being bold, there should have been a discussion. Experiments are well and good, but events have shown this wasn't a good one. Perhaps Wikia could use it? And Jack, I mean Br'er makes a good point, this is a minefield for those who don't know any better, who just copy their templates from somewhere and will get stuck with bare-bones templates they don't need when they could do better.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are not a fork, and any major differences are accidental, such as format differences, which have been fixed now, to match the {Cite} format (see: Help:Citation_style_1). -Wikid77 12:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: quoting Jimbo Wales again "where ... standard templates causing significant issues" - where would that be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any place where there is high traffic and significant load times. Let's look at it this way, if someone suddenly introduced a template in widespread use which caused these kinds of load times, they'd be immediately reprimanded. That we got here incrementally over a long period of time is no reason to accept what is clearly unacceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with load times. I have a problem with diversity of templates where a standard would be desirable. I have a problem with confusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been had. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or are perceptive and some disagree with your position and cannot fathom the possibility that they are not correct. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others in here. Sometimes great ideas may actually cause more harm than good. --Lecen (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a testbed. As I understand it, and I haven't paid close attention, Wikid77 has created a new set of "faster" citation templates, then ran out and threw them into the real world without much (if any) testing. The latter seems to be the concern, not the former. The best solution in my mind is to encourage the code optimization, test it properly, then integrate into the main cite x family once the tests show they are ready to replace the current code. Resolute 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid77 is not seeking to develop optimisations to re-integrate with the usual templates, he's proselytising 'fast' as a rationale for putting reduced functionality on offer. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, and that is why reverting his changes in mainspace is a good thing. But that doesn't mean his overall concept is not also good. I would rather see him continue to work on balancing functionality with speed to achieve a happy medium than to slap him down and discourage any effort at optimizing Wikipedia's code. Resolute 23:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fcite - More opinions
edit
  • Keep per Jimbo, and something about consistency and hobgoblins... No reason to NOT have a speedy version around. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on the assertion that they are 'harmless' the harm comes from the extra level of difficulty and confusion required to use them. Looking at {{Fcite}} how exactly are editors to decide whether to use this or {{Cite}}? The documentation says
'To allow extreme speed, only the basic parameter names are supported, such as "coauthors=" rather than "last4=" or "last5=" (etc.). For rare parameters, the original cite templates can still be used, and mixed within an article. To view parameter names, see: Template:Citation/doc.'
But there's no other indication which parameters the creator considers "basic" and "rare", or what criterion has been used. So editors need to look at the template source to see which fields are supported. At best this is extra work for every editor using them and coming across them. At worst it will lead to errors where citations don't display properly because editors have used one of the above when it's not appropriate, as many can't or won't check the template source, or have replaced one with the other without checking. This can be addressed with proper documentation but it will never be eliminated, and just means there's more to read and learn before editors can use them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Fcite replies about extra parameters: Actually, the current Fcite tells the user when a specific parameter is not supported, and suggests another option:
·{{Fcite|author1=John Doe|editor1=Mary|work=Book Title}} → John Doe; Book Title
Fcite: Found "editor1=" - use "editor=".
I am also testing the concept of having it report use of most unsupported parameters, which acts as a reminder, in case some users think more alias parameters are supported. The original intent was to have Fcite perform more parameter validation, since the older templates had become too slow to also display advice for the user. However, some parameters can be faster to allow, then to report as "non-supported". Thanks for noting that helpful feature for the first-time users. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So to discover which to use based on the parameters you use trial and error, trying out different parameters to find out what the alternatives are and which are simply not supported (as I presume it reports those too). And how exactly is trial and error better than clear documentation? If the point is to minimise time spent waiting for the page to load then asking editors to load the page multiple times to discover what works is precisely the wrong solution.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, meanwhile the citations format 6x faster, so if a user needs 4 repetitions of edit-preview to set the Fcite parameters, then that still gains 2 repetitions beyond the old cites. Then consider the many prior users who ran edit-preview twice, so that means 2×6=12 times faster, and a user who runs 4 edit-previews is now 8x times ahead (12-4=8) of the old cites. I rarely thought of that major advantage, so thank you for emphasizing how much faster the editing will be for users who try various options several times. -Wikid77 12:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 times faster? No, that is simply wrong. Your '6 times faster' may be right for the speed of a single template. The page as a whole will not load 6x faster as due to the other content, not least the mix of old and new templates (as the newer ones can't be used everywhere). Then requiring the editor to load the page multiple times to get the right result will be slower still. Much slower as they are just not hitting 'reload'/'preview' two or three times as a timing exercise. They are having to scroll to their changes, work out what they've done, then revise them based on what's worked and not worked, possibly changing to use the older templates once they discover the new ones are too limited, all of which is going to take far longer. Your 12× faster clearly bears no relation to how they will be used, which makes me wonder how accurate your other estimates of speed improvement are.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These templates make the wiki more complex and harder to use. Page load times are not a significant problem for the vast majority of our readers, who are not logged in, and are thus served a cached version of the page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page-load, reformat problem occurs during edit-preview: edit and try a Show-preview in "Israel" or "Brazil" or "Wiki" or "Bulgaria" or "Beyonce" or "Canada" or "Isaac Newton" or "Egypt" or "Kolkata" (32 seconds) or any large city, and find how many take longer than 7 seconds to show during edit-preview. Instead, Fcite can make most major articles edit-preview in 5-10 seconds, rather than 17-35 seconds. People who edit-preview large articles gain the most from Fcite. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:12/19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that these templates have been edited by the editor to add in support as problems are identified. (You know, like would normally happen in offline testing). Presumably they will slow as support for the bits that are necessary and desirable increases and the wheel is reinvented from the ground up rather than refined from its existing state. pablo 21:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using more parameters means slower: (updated) Thank you Pablo for noting the progression, because the Fcite templates were created as lite mini-templates, with few parameters, which ran over 7x faster, but users insisted more features were needed beyond "too lite". Otherwise, the Fcite templates could not have actually "run faster" but rather "omitted features faster". So, to provide basic equivalent functionality, more parameters were added, which slowed performance to only 5-6x faster. Meanwhile, the added parameters did not match the format of the {Cite} templates (Help:Citation Style_1), and so the added parameters were also moved to match (not fork) the style of the {Cite} family. Adding even more parameters appears to slow performance to only 4x faster, so I agree there appears to be a dangerous trend that if "all" {Cite} parameters were added, then Fcite would no longer be the "fast-cite" but rather "formerly-fast-cite". And yet, using fewer parameters still runs 6x faster, so reduction to 4x faster might only be when using rare parameters. Plus now, the promise becomes "completely replaces Cite everywhere" (in all 1.6 million articles where used), and that requires extensive super-human testing, much different than changing just the top 1,000 major articles and checking results in only those 1,000 pages. At some point among 1.6 million articles, it does not matter if a rarely edited article will edit-preview 3x faster than 4 seconds. The point was to accelerate the display of slow major articles (viewed over 6,000 times per day), while guaranteeing no changes to the remainder of 1.6 million articles. Fcite is not intended to disrupt performance in 1.6 million articles, to guess which thousands do not work as before. Instead, Fcite is intended for a few thousand mega-articles or mainstream articles, viewed and edited (and checked) more frequently. -Wikid77 01:47, revised 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you've had exactly zero community buy-in for deploying the "fast" templates on these high-traffic pages, for reasons varying from CITEVAR to the quite simple argument that our most popular articles probably actually need the functionality provided by the "slow" citation system. So if they're not going to get deployed on the only pages that you want to deploy them on, what is the purpose of retaining them? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been partial "community buy-in". Those were old concerns, expressed about the initial versions of the Fcite templates, and since then, when the improved Fcite templates are tried in major articles, then all citation features are supported. The prior problem, as keenly noted, was Fcite had been "too lite" but once expanded, Fcite began handling every citation in a major article, while still running 5-6x faster than {Cite} & {Citation}. -Wikid77 12:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the evidence of this acceptance is where? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above, 8 "Keep" with the notion that use would be carefully tested to ensure matching prior citations. -Wikid77 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not buy-in for deploying them. When you actually deployed them to the high-profile articles that you designed them for, the response was largely negative. These can be developed in your userspace and then changes to the main templates suggested once they've been tested. Keeping them in templatespace simply increases the chance of some well-meaning editor putting them on articles, which there's a consensus against. As Br'er Rabbit suggested above, this falls into attractive nuisance territory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are still problems, it's possible that they can be fixed, and the documentation can be improved. They are new templates, not old, abandoned pages. If rejected, they should still be kept as useful in discussing improvements. Many of the current templates were forks of older templates that have been deleted, and it appears to have been done that way instead of editing the templates already in use because the parameters were different - based on some of the arguments in this discussion maybe they should also be deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and life-ban their creator and his known relatives and associates. Keep (just in case the closer doesn't get irony). Just how dare anyone come along and put in hard work trying to do something to make Wikipedia better? I mean, how dare they? It's almost tantamount to implying that Wikipedia isn't perfect already. Clearly these templates should be immediately deleted, otherwise someone with the misguided idea that this is supposed to be a cooperative project might come along, fix the problems with them - and then we'd be left with no excuse for not using them! And that would only further embolden this deranged individual to set about making more improvements elsewhere... I prefer not even to contemplate where that might lead. Please, just destroy. Victor Yus (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current citation templates slow down load times on large articles to the point where it's difficult to edit them. Preview and diffs can easily take 10 seconds plus to load, and sometimes 20 or 30 seconds. This isn't a new problem – it has been an issue for years – so the argument that we should work to improve the existing templates is difficult to sustain, because nothing has changed. The result is that they are a serious bar to editing on articles that contain a lot of them, and if we're trying to attract and retain new editors, this is obviously not a good thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is a strong consensus that the answer isn't creating some "lite" templates for use of specific pages that reduce loading times by stripping out functionality. It is hard to improve the existing templates, but we have to or the situation will never improve. This is a valid experiment, but that's all it is, and experimental templates should not be left around in templatespace in case people start using them (and then we have another problem because we've let loose yet another citation system). Wikid77 can continue to work on this system in his userspace, and if it ever gets to the point where it's usable enough to switch over to it in its entirety then we can do that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve covered wagon before sports car: The implicit assumption that the {Cite} templates can become a "sports car" by improving the covered wagon is a major disconnect. We have had Template:Citation/core for years, and many people have tried, including myself, to streamline, but it is just too big and too slow. By comparison, Template:Fcite_web runs 6x faster, perhaps 7x when improved. Now, meanwhile, a covered wagon has some major advantages over a sports car (but not speed), so a wagon can hold more bales of hay and keep them dry during a rainstorm. The {Cite} templates can handle 5 alias names for each parameter: where last1 can be just "last" or "author" or "author1" or "surname" or "surname1". For people who like "surname1" then {Cite_web} is fantastic for them. However, meanwhile, there have been thousands of articles using each of the various aliases, and {Fcite_web} gains speed by focusing on fewer aliases. Fcite_web is not the "covered wagon" which holds more, but it is a smaller and faster version. We should not outlaw wagons nor sports cars, but allow both. -Wikid77 13:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when someone needs a surname1 in an article which has been overhauled to replace its 150 existing {{cite}}s with {{fcite}}s? Who decides the threshold at which an article is converted? Why is adding surname1 directly to {{fcite}} not practical? Considering the masses of paragraphs of rhetoric that have been generated in defending the new code, it seems extraordinarily difficult to get simple answers to simple questions such as these. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fcite warns of unsupported parameters: The idea is for Fcite to run fast but warn the user, as: Fcite_web: Found "surname1=" - use "last=". (and similar warnings). Handling the alias parameters surname1/given1, surname2/given2 (or aliases for other parameters) would cause Fcite to run twice as slow. Checking for 4 name-spellings runs twice as slow as 1 spelling. All the aliases and rare options slow the total speed. -Wikid77 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution of all, I think, is just to abandon citation templates completely and learn to write out citations explicitly ourselves. Given that this would involve (a) less typing, (b) less confusing wikitext, (c) various other psychological advantages that I can't be bothered to list, and now apparently (d) an easy solution to the page-loading problem, the suggestion seems a winner all round. And, therefore, has absolutely no chance of being adopted by the complexity-loving, change-hating wiki elite, so I don't know why I even bothered bringing it up. Sorry. Victor Yus (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-coded citations are even faster, so {Fcite} is a compromise solution, to promote a standard format of names, volume, issue, and pages, but 5-6x times faster than {Cite_web}. -Wikid77 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See below - Not compatible with some of our tools like Google book tool that use Author 2 etc... We use this tools to make things faster as a user - not to have to edit the author(s). Also having the page number right after a date looks odd and confusing... All that said would support if problems fixed.Moxy (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ninette Kelley; Michael J. Trebilcock (September 30, 2010). The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. University of Toronto Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-8020-9536-7.
  2. ^ Ninette Kelley; Michael J. Trebilcock (September 30, 2010). The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. University of Toronto Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-8020-9536-7.
Thank you for that example. I see {Fcite_book} has not been completely updated to match the {Cite_book} format. I will fix soon.... Done. It took about 20 minutes. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:35, revised 00:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks ok to me now - got my support - as it works with Google book tool now. Others should be more specific so concerns can be addressed in this manner.Moxy (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This should close soon. I'll re-iterate my position. The forking to new "F" names is highly inappropriate. "Fast" is not the correct metric at all. Sure faster is good, and the effort at developing this code should be focused on improving the standard suite of citation templates rather than offering the appeal of faster to the editors of the project as a rationale to deploy reduced functionality and greater incompatibility into articles. The goal is the content presented to readers, and they outnumber editors by orders of magnitude; they also get cached copies so speed of preview is not their concern at all. This "F" initiative is disruptive to the coherency of the citation mechanisms used in this project. Even if kept, there is no consensus to deploy these beyond sandboxes. That would take an RFC which will be next should Wikid77 not re-focus on the core templates. Some of the techniques here are useful and should be incorporated into the usual templates so that millions of articles benefit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: In trying to reach a compromise consensus, for various issues noted here, I have been expanding the Fcite templates to handle more parameters (such as author names 1 to 8, and journal codes) while retaining high-speed formatting of citations. Several other editors have emphasized the need for fast citations: many major articles, such as "Brazil", "Wikipedia", "Egypt" or "Israel" have often taken 20-45 seconds to edit-preview, rather than 7-12 seconds. While it is true that most readers rarely edit major articles, if editing remains so slow and tedious, then fewer editors would want to update major articles with such slow edit-preview delays. After a few prolonged snailpace edits, impatient editors will not keep updating. The misguided appearance as "forks" (wp:CITEVAR) was due to glitches in the displayed format of Fcite parameters, which has been fixed this week in most cases. By supporting almost all major parameters from {Cite_web} or {Cite_journal}, then users of Fcite will no longer need to fear "reduced functionality" or other issues of disruptive usage. The remaining difference is that the Fcite templates do not support extremely rare parameters, such as "surname1=", "given1=" or "authormask=" which would slow operation for most usage. There are plans for the Fcite templates to warn the user when rare parameters are attempted. Again, as noted above, the reformat speed of major articles is a severe problem for editors, but also for readers who view articles with Special:Preferences, such as thumbnail size higher/lower than 220px (using 120px or 250px will bypass cache and reformat articles 10-50x slower). Hence, the Fcite templates, as fast-cite versions, will greatly improve the editing or special-viewing of major articles (likely 3x faster, as 3-10 second reformats). Meanwhile, smaller articles are not affected by such intolerable format delays, due to differences of only 1-4 seconds. I thank everyone in expressing concerns, above, which led to this new, compromise consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're blustering about there being a "new, compromise consensus" and this is most certainly still incompatible. I just previewed Nickel (United States coin) with the cites tweaked and it failed on many of the harv usages. Please re-focus on improving the standard templates instead of seeking to fork articles to using non-standard ones that may be faster, but do not work properly. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed for ref=harv. Thank you for noting article "Nickel (United States coin)" where there were only 108 author-links, so the few isolated problems, with ref=harv, were easier to detect among those 108. I am sorry I did not fix those isolated links last week, because I usually write templates with higher than 96% accuracy. If you find other articles where Fcite fails to work in 99.99% of cases, then let me know so I can fix those also. Thanks again. -Wikid77 06:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still broken for |ref={{sfnRef}}, which is common. You are trying to paper over the major deficiencies these templates have. Endless "Fixed, thanks", when it's not the case. The other day I tried about a half dozen articles and these templates failed on most of them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve, then merge, maybe. I'm an idiot when it comes to coding/technology, but I don't see that these are doing any harm. If they end up working really well, perhaps they could be carefully merged with other cite templates later on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep; Mark as experimental and not for article use; develop and test before deployment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:39, 26 July 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.
Fcite - wider consensus
edit

Note to closing admin: The above discussion had been closed, incorrectly, as "no consensus to delete" but "not deployed in article space". I certainly did not consent to that position, so there was no consensus for "Keep-don't-use", at all, ever. Instead, I have worked out a compromise consensus to fix the noted problems before using the templates in article space, as also suggested by other users above.

Specifically, in trying to reach a compromise consensus, for various issues noted above, I have been expanding the Fcite templates to handle more parameters (such as author names 1 to 8, and journal codes) while retaining high-speed formatting of citations. Several other editors have emphasized the need for fast citations: many major articles, such as "Brazil", "Wikipedia", "Egypt" or "Israel" have often taken 20-45 seconds to edit-preview, rather than 7-12 seconds. While it is true that most readers rarely edit major articles, if editing remains so slow and tedious, then fewer editors would want to update major articles with such slow edit-preview delays. After a few prolonged snailpace edits, impatient editors will not keep updating. The misguided appearance as "forks" (wp:CITEVAR) was due to glitches in the displayed format of Fcite parameters, which has been fixed this week in most cases. By supporting almost all major parameters from {Cite_web} or {Cite_journal}, then users of Fcite will no longer need to fear "reduced functionality" or other issues of disruptive usage. The remaining difference is that the Fcite templates do not support extremely rare parameters, such as "surname1=", "given1=" or "authormask=" which would slow operation for most usage. There are plans for the Fcite templates to warn the user when rare parameters are attempted. Again, as noted above, the reformat speed of major articles is a severe problem for editors, but also for readers who view articles with Special:Preferences, such as thumbnail size higher/lower than 220px (using 120px or 250px will bypass cache and reformat articles 10-50x slower). Hence, the Fcite templates, as fast-cite versions, will greatly improve the editing or special-viewing of major articles (likely 3x faster, as 3-10 second reformats). Meanwhile, smaller articles are not affected by such intolerable format delays, due to differences of only 1-4 seconds. I thank everyone in expressing concerns, above, which led to this new, compromise consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This TfD is closed, and your consent is not required. The "new, compromise consensus" you assert does not exist. Do not deploy this in articles. Do offer the techniques used for the improvement of the standard cite templates. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Broken utility template, used only in a couple of old welcome notices. The intended functionality is to allow for simple inclusion of a "new section" link to a user's talk page, but it doesn't work, and presumably there is some more broadly-deployed alternative out there now since this one has been abandoned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to use {{edit}} or other templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 15 July 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:Str case title word

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Str case title word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fixcaps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused utility templates with no obvious productive purpose. If text needs to be reformatted in a certain case, the wikitext should simply be altered, rather than calling some convoluted parser function. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep from author: The Template:Fixcaps is an edit-preview template, to be used daily (such as by WP:GOCE editors), to format ALL-CAPS text into typical sentences or book/film titles. The basic example:
{{fixcaps |/GOnE wiTH tHE /winD}} → Result: Gone with the Wind
The reason those templates appear "unused" is due to the recommended wp:Subst'ing of the results back into an article, and so Special:WhatLinksHere will not know the template was used, during editing, in those numerous articles. The GOCE editors (in wp:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) often find large tracts of ALL-CAPS text, perhaps from 3rd-world users with cultures based on capital-letter English (as used in foreign-travel visas where lowercase letters are "forbidden" in passport documents). Anyway, those templates have been used, daily, since created in May 2012. They were created especially for WP:GOCE editors, to help inspire them to see easier ways to fix tedious text, such as "LONG TRACTS OF UPPERCASE TEXT WITH UNUSUAL /ADAGYNTHDEPRA NAMES."
Result: "Long tracts of uppercase text with unusual Adagynthdepra names. "
The ALL-CAPS text can be seen as tedious, depressing busywork to rewrite and respell those names. The results have been great. That is why I advise Strong keep to not demoralize those hard-working editors. Meanwhile, I have updated those templates to note "non-transcluded" to explain why so few pages link there. That was a good catch by User:Thumperward to notice those valuable templates previously had no explanation for having few links and appearing "unused". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:26, revised 17:38, 15 July 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:Turner Theory of Color

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; deleted as G7 by ItsZippy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turner Theory of Color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template, but an article created in the template namespace (as opposed to WP:AfC, which would have been a much better place to start a draft). My own impressions are that the content is well-sourced, that the page would stand a reasonably good chance if it were an article nominated at WP:AfD, and that a move to the main namespace may be appropriate; however, I would be interested to know other editors' thoughts on this. SuperMarioMan 01:55, 15 July 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:Pakistan Intelligence

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) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan Intelligence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template, but an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. Non-notable company. SuperMarioMan 01:24, 15 July 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:Caloocan City Science High School

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; deleted as G2 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caloocan City Science High School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

News link to a non-notable story; no foreseeable encyclopaedic use. SuperMarioMan 01:21, 15 July 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:Caloocan City

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; deleted as G2 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caloocan City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stub article, about a completely non-notable school, created as a template. SuperMarioMan 01:19, 15 July 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.
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; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Law-related-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article about a legal firm, without clear notability, created in the wrong namespace. SuperMarioMan 01:14, 15 July 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:KI Philip

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; deleted as G2 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KI Philip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transclusion of Template:Infobox describing a non-notable person. SuperMarioMan 00:51, 15 July 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:Balianti

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; deleted as G2 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a company with no clear notability created in the wrong namespace. SuperMarioMan 00:46, 15 July 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:Uploaded with en.wp UW marker

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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uploaded with en.wp UW marker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content limited to a substitution of Template:Self; no obvious potential for encyclopaedic use. SuperMarioMan 00:34, 15 July 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:'''Recios Music'''

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; deleted as G2 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:'''Recios Music''' (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mal-formatted; contains only one repeated external link (which seems to be promotional). Not used in any article. SuperMarioMan 00:24, 15 July 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:MATA lines

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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MATA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Zero transclusions; function unclear; half-filled-in copy of fields from Template:Infobox rail line. SuperMarioMan 00:16, 15 July 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_July_15&oldid=1144418083"