Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20 edit

Template:Redirect-acronym 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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a separate dablink template for acronyms, and the wording of this one is gratuitously different to the other redirect templates and also less flexible. With fewer than 100 uses it can easily be replaced with {{redirect}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (original author) no objections here, never really caught on as I expected it to. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace/redirect - seems redundant. — Omegatron 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I was looking for a redirect template, I needed one for an acronym and this was exactly what I was looking for. See MECP for example. War wizard90 (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{redirect}}. There's no need to keep redundancy.--NAHID 07:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - War wizard90, what would have been wrong with {{Redirect|Redirected page title}} or even {{otheruses4}}, which is pretty darned flexible?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It was an easier template to understand and utilize in the situation. - War wizard90 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so current uses don't break - Might I suggest that if "the wording of this one is gratuitously different to the other redirect templates" that the correct solution might be to edit the wording rather than to delete the template? MilesAgain (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, there are fewer than 100 uses, so this is a non-issue. Proliferation of dablink templates is bad because it encourages this divergence of wording. On which note, my suggestion is: Deprecate, then delete once all uses are converted. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we keep it, War wizard90 should discuss at WT:Disambiguation having it added to the usages there.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is very helpful for acronymed pages, and I don't see why it should be deleted. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:36, 26 January 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:Non-free 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 debate was to redirect. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is used on only two image pages and can easily be replaced with {{Non-free use rationale}}. Hidden text in the template claims template is experimental and shouldn't be deleted, but it was created in October in 2007 and has not been edited since, and is now redundant. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Change it so it redirects to {{Non-free use rationale}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree redirecting is the way to go; would doing so cause any problems for bots, or is that something we should let bot maintainers worry about? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirecting for the sake of two images seems unnecessary. — Edokter • Talk • 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete I don't have a preference for either at this point, but the template is redundant in its present state. JPG-GR (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Non-free use rationale}}. We don't need two of these templates, but it's a useful alternative title. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - no preference. Happy‑melon 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone ask User:Wikidemo what he was doing with this? We had a lot of talk back them about revamping templates and doing a bunch of stuff, and this is no doubt related. We lost steam on some of that stuff, but a lot of us still plan to explore those ideas. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this - it's premature. I'm the creator (you should have asked me before going through this processs). It's not redundant at all. It's a work in progress, about 2/3 finished, created in response to [[1]]. That proposal is approved but has been moribund for the past few months due to lack of cooperation among various parties. If the proposal survives this template is relevant and will have to be recreated. It has to be in template space instead of a user sandbox in order to test it properly. The best approach is to make a comment on the proposal so that if and when the proposal is ultimately rejected the template can be deleted; if not, the template will probably by finished by me or someone else. Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 26 January 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.

Please note - if I pick up development of this template again i'm obviously going to recreate it - deletion review would seem pointless. Wikidemo (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flag of Europe renamed Template:Flags of Europe 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 debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redunt as it only links to another template :Template:Europe topic. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, makes more sense than trancluding the other template. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - No a redirect won't do it, it actually modifies {{Europe topic}} on all the [[Flag of X Country]] pages so that not only does the name of the template read "Flags of Europe" rather than "Europe" but all of the country links will link not to the country articles but to the "Flag of Country" articles. I've never personally used it, but as an active member of WikiProject Eastern Europe and WikiProject European history, it sure looks useful to me. It's used on over 50 pages where {{Europe topic}} would not be anywhere near as appropriate. If someone asked me to help with fixing it manually, I'd ask why they weren't using a template!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that cannot be handled directly in the articles because...? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh it could, you'd just have to change all 60 or 70 or so of them and then make sure you updated them when ever countries changed names or split, etc.; that's my point when I say: If someone asked me to help with fixing it manually, I'd ask why they weren't using a template!. The point is it's not redundant at all, it simply uses a template inside the template - as many do. If there is a change, a fix to {{Europe topic}} fixes the flag template too. Work smarter not harder. :-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should be easy for somebody who understands how to use AWB. Just a case of substituting all instances of this template, which will cause articles to directly transclude the other one. Most of the admins how close TFD discussions use AWB. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GW_Simulations. A template which itself only consists of a transcluded template makes no sense at all. JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the utility of this. Remember the primary purpose of the template namespace is to make things easier for article editors - TfD should delete only things that don't do that, or do that in a way that is inferior to another possible solution. Happy‑melon 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's a feature, not a bug! The Template:Europe topic is programmed so that it is easy to create sub-templates for specific topics in each European country. RTFM: Wikipedia:Continent_and_region_topic_templates. There are plenty of templates which use this technique: see Template:Languages of Europe, Template:History of Europe and many, many more. ASN (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Happymelon and ASN. This setup makes it possible (and very easy) for people to both a) insert the right navbar in the necessary articles; and b) create new navbars for new topics as the need arises. Very clever and efficient. But wouldn't it be better to rename it to "Flags of Europe"? - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 12:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per 52 pickup above. Terraxos (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done If you see a way you can improve the template do so - I moved the page to to Template:Flags of Europe as there was no good reason to wait for this obvious change. Fixed the {{tfd}} so that it still comes to here. Obviously it's the renamed template we're discussing not the redirect at the old name.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 26 January 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:Edit-top-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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Sandstein points out for the similar template:Edit-first-section, "This template is obsolete, as its functionality is now available as a user preference (see Special:Preferences > Gadgets > User Interface Gadgets)" Generally, including server-side commands into an article seems to be a bad idea. Functions should stay with the software, and not not clogg the wiki, wich is supposed to be simple and free of such needs. — 790 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. {{Edit-first-section}} is indeed obsolete. This template is still used on 50+ (long) articles, and not everyone has the gadget enabled. They do not conflict, and the template documentation does point users to the gadget.User:Edokter [2] (was unsigned)

It could be removed quickly from those 50. Programming buttons directly into the article just seems to be a pretty dirty workaround. -- 790 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Keep this one, delete Edit-first-section template (or vice versa). One will allow for IP users that don't have the Gadget option available. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this template replaced Edit-first-section. — Edokter • Talk • 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. Keep one, delete the other then. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this up for vote again? One was started on January 18. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same template. -- 790 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Thanks. Changing my vote then.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 18#Template:Edit-first-section. This template appears to be obsolete, too. Users who desire this function can create an account. Sandstein (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user settings should be determined by the user, not the editors of individual articles. If you want the edit link to appear on all pages for everyone (which I think would be a good idea), petition for it over at the Village Pump. - Koweja (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with the other template - it is useful to unregistered readers and editors. --Iamunknown 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so useful if one has to add the template to individual articles, creating clutter and overhead. If at all, this must be implemented as a general default preference, not as a template workaround. Sandstein (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous comments. Such a feature should not be added on a page-by-page basis as there is no real definable criteria for including it and blurs the standard software behaviour. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to get consensus for it being added site-wide, and there is currently an old bug open (bugzilla:156) for getting it included in the software. matt br 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale for the other TfD. This is not even close to an elegant solution to a real problem that can be solved by two minutes of developer time. Make a proposal at VPT if you are concerned - in fact I might do that myself if I have time. Happy‑melon 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments above, this is a poor and highly imperfect solution to a problem which is not best fixed with templates. The better solution (apart from registering an account and selecting the appropriate user preference) is to request a change in the software. Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but depreciate. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 26 January 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:Shelbourne F.C. Squad 2006 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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have squad-by-year templates been deleted by ample precedent, this one is a single-use, not included on any pages. — Neier (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Neier (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 22 January 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:Shelbourne F.C. Squad 2007 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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have squad-by-year templates been deleted by ample precedent, this one is a single-use, included on only one page. — Neier (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Neier (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 22 January 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:Free State infobox 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 debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Subst and delete. — BD2412 T 07:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Subst and Delete A filled-in infobox masquerading as a template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a problem with all of the provinces of South Africa. Rather than Subst, why not suggest to WP:WikiProject South Africa that they fix all of them so they can make changes all at once. Otherwise, we might as well subst them all.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 03:01, 26 January 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 Farscape character 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 debate was speedy delete CSD G7 by User:Elonka. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created this template a few months back, all character articles have been merged and this is no longer being used anywhere. I'm sure a more generic template exists should the need arise in the future, so this one may as well go. — PC78 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G7 per nom, and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template and related doc page deleted, per request. --El on ka 05:55, 20 January 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:Zen Infobox 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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused single-purpose infobox. — PC78 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD:G6 - unused --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I worked a bit on the Zen article and that infobox looked kinda ugly. I figured I'd leave the infobox alone until the author or somebody else decided to delete it. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 16:34, 22 January 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.