Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21

Template:NYLargestCities

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, as redundant to template:New York and a list article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unneeded navigation template that only serves to clutter up articles with plenty of templates already. The most important communities (which is based on more than just population) are already listed in Template:New York. The communities listed here that aren't in Template:New York have virtually nothing in common with each other: Brighton, Monroe County, New York is a suburban town in the western part of the state, while Centereach, New York is a hamlet on Long Island; there's no more reason for someone reading about Brighton to want to jump directly to Centereach than there would be for jumping to a community in Pennsylvania, or Ontario. The navbox attempts to link communities based on a fairly arbitrary criterion that doesn't reflect the way people actually navigate an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are dozens of templates like this under Category:City population templates. I suppose you want to delete those as well? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know as much about those states, but in general I would agree that they probably are not very useful for navigation. Powers ^T 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this isn't how people navigate articles, agree with nom. Others should be questioned, if anything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, excessive navigation cruft. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Links unrelated communities unnecessarily. Article (list) content masquerading as a template. Reso lute 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The only relation that these communities have which seems to be necessary is their population. As for Resolute's accusation of it being a list masquerading as a template, I say it looks a lot neater as a template. ----DanTD (talk) 14:36, 27 June 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:Milhistwiki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used to spam an external links. v/r - T P 22:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this count as G3? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not but maybe G11. Felt it was better just to send it here though.--v/r - T P 23:40, 21 June 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:Campaignbox Falklands crisis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Falklands crisis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Campaignbox composed of a single article. Even worse, neither the Capture of Port Egmont was a battle nor the Falklands Crisis (1770) a war, it was all a big diplomatic discussion, so it is pointless to use a campaignbox, which is a tool meant for military campaigns Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Hohum ^@) 14:30, 23 June 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:Current time box

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current time box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and there are plenty of other current time templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does that purge function work correctly? If so, it might be considered for inclusion into the other current time templates. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 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:TreeList start

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 withdrawn Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TreeList start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TreeList end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

does not work on this wiki because we don't have "treeview" in our MediaWiki:Common.css. would work on the FR wiki, but that is a different wiki. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion is premature, it will work once the request to add the script to common.css has been approved, which is in discussion already. Multiple parties involved.--UnQuébécois (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with UnQuébécois in preparing the groundwork for the installation of the "treeview" code. UnQuébécois is liaising with the Admins regarding the Java installation and I am ensuring that the templates are clean. Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you need this template before the feature is added to MediaWiki:Common.css? All it does is create a simple div container with the treeview class. It would seem like you could wait until the feature was added before creating a wrapper template. Basically the same approach taken with {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything of the creation of {{flatlist}} and {{plainlist}}. It did not appear to be a controversial request to add the treeview class, I did not think it would take this much time to bring over functionality that already exists on a sister project. Please could you direct me to the page explaining the procedure and order that has to be followed to implement changes so I will know what needs to take place in the future?--UnQuébécois (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the treeview class has been implemented.--UnQuébécois (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that these templates already existed, and have now imported this set of templates from the French Wikipedia. They can be found at Template:Tree view. I think this discussion can be closed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 22 June 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:Current sport section

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current sport section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{current sport|section}} with none of the additional features of {{current sport}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:32, 22 June 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:PISA 2009 Top 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PISA 2009 Top 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only being used in one page (I substed into Science and technology in the People's Republic of China), and it isn't so complex that it needs a separate template. Izno (talk) 16:08, 21 June 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:Indian Fashion Industry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Fashion Industry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template at present has 4 rows; Designers, Models, Events and Schools. 9 designers are listed, where as Category:Indian fashion designers has 33 and all can go in here. Similar with models. The template lists 8 persons. But Category:Indian models has 322 in it. But then we should not add those all here as templates are not lists. Above all, these are not all conclusive. Current enteries are just someone's favorites i guess. Then remains two rows of events and schools which have 1 entry each. The template should hence be deleted. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not salutation , if there are very less well known designer are listed may be others can be added . similarly with models and Institutions --Priyankanift (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Complete Rewrite - Template as written is not helpful; a list of individuals in an entire industry would be too extensive to have in such a template, and the current entries are a small and rather WP:UNDUE representation of what the template suggests. - Sudo Ghost 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is never going to be representative in its present form for the reasons that Animesh and SudoGhost explain, and it is difficult to see how it could be rewritten to become so. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 26 June 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:OrganicBox tautomers

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) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OrganicBox tautomers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OrganicBox CAS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OrganicBox formula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OrganicBox name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Unused; purpose unclear; appears obsolete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have added three other templates to the nomination without saying anything... — This, that, and the other (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe these are all remnants of a deprecated alternate version of {{chembox}} which are no longer needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete these and {{OrganicBox}}, which I am adding. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 23 June 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:Periodic table by article quality (compact)

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) 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table by article quality (compact) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template gives an overview of the Article Quality in periodic table articles. Such an overview is mainly used by WP:ELEMENTS editors. Now there is already a non-compact template {{Periodic table by article quality}} that does the same, and has more articles. So the compact one is a reduced content copy. Because there are often changes in the ~150 article qualities, updates are required. Since this is a secondary (derived) version, such maintenance could be up to date, but only at best. Together, since this one does not add anything, and reduces the overview, and is prone to be updated late if at all, we'd better do without. The big one takes care of it all. The compact one has no individal transclusions (is always in combination with the big one). DePiep (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DePiep. I know I myself always forget to update it. String Theory¹¹ 23:53, 27 June 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:Sta. Lucia Realtors current roster

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) 21:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sta. Lucia Realtors current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This tempate is for a defunct franchise, the Sta. Lucia Realtors. This should be deleted since they are no longer an active member of the PBA. -WayKurat (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:29, 21 June 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.