Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22 edit

Template:2003 Jaguars Results 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2003 Jaguars Results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one page uses it and there are no other templates like this for any other teams. ~Richmond96 t • c 23:45, 22 December 2008 (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:Usernameabuse 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. Please take the rename suggestion to WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{uw-ublock}}, rarely used (2 transclusions are shown in the what links here). Also appears to be a copy of an older revision of {{uw-ublock}}, with small changes, see [1]. Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's redundant. {{Uw-ublock}} is a nice, friendly template for users with an obviously inappropriate username, but no obvious malicious intent. I prefer to use {{Usernameabuse}} as a less-friendly alternative for usernames with other mitigating circumstances—usernames with profanity for example, or slightly vandalistic edits—that I don't consider severe enough to justify a hardblock. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{uw-usernameabuse}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox shrine 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This template could be useful for articles about non church/mosque/synagogue buildings that are considered holy in the Abrahamic Religions, This could also be useful in articles about shrines in religions like Hinduism and Budhism. The fact that it hasn't been used is inexplicable. This is all the reason I say weak keep.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox religious building}} and others, for such purposes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 28 December 2008 (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:Fb team Reds 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team Reds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a duplicate of an existing template for the same team found at Template:Fb_team_Red_Diamonds. New template fails to produce the club's full name as appears on team badge, as is produced by already existing template, and as is used on all other Wikipedia references to this team. Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2008 (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:Prof. Alder 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 speedied --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prof. Alder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, consists of an infobox and cleanup tag. Probably created in confusion about how infoboxes and the template namespace work. Pagra shtak 07:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons given by the nominator.

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:Future stadium 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future stadium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sports venue under re-development in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Future sports venue. "Sports venue" and "stadium" are not so different as to require separate templates. ninety:one 00:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An example of template proliferation. Copies the functionality of {{future}}. Redundant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. My comment is not directly about this template, but about future and current templates in general. Deletion rationale presented (and probably arguments that would be added) here applies probably to other future and current templates. Therefore, probably we need a general guidelines or policy with clear rules, in which case we can accept these templates and in which case not. As there are about half hundred such templates, I agree that we don't need all of them. If we are going to delete this template, I propose to add also Template:Sports venue under re-development in the United States. Just for example some other templates like Template:Current bill, Template:Future airline, Template:Future amusement ride, Template:Future chip, Template:Proposed engine design, or most recently created Template:Future Paperless Tickets, which clearly present the need for more general approach concerning future and current templates. These were just examples. There was block deletion of future templates half a year ago, when one editor removed template tag from articles and listed templates after that for deletion as templates not in use. I think we should avoid that kind of practice. Just some days ago the discussion about deletion of three templates was closed; result was keep. I think that we really have to find consensus about general policy. Beagel (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend to consolidate as many of those future templates as possible over Christmas - is there some place (or WikiProject) where we could discuss this? ninety:one 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to the general comment: Places where discussion has occurred to date:
  Category talk:Temporal templates.
  At Template talk:Current and its archives you'll see there are years discussion on even the fundamental template {{current}}.
  Similar complaint about proliferation of varieties copying the functionality of {{future}} can be found at Template talk:Future.
  There's a bit at Wikipedia talk:Current and future event templates.
  This now out-of-date essay has continuing influence: User:Shanes/Why tags are evil.
  This policy has some relationship to the general conversation: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.
  Then there is the slightly related giant discussion and demise of {{spoiler}}, which can be found only in part part at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8#Template:Spoiler.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's great, thanks. Having reviewed all of those, I see no reason why we can't simply add a bit to {{future}} and delete all the other {{Future xyz}}s. Some of the subheading text is custom, but if we put a conditional on that text then we can have it automatically chosen by using one variable parameter. I'll have a go now. Perhaps the best place to move this discussion to is Template talk:Future? ninety:one 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In case anyone's still following, have finished re-writing it. See here. ninety:one 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless. Garion96 (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2008 (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.