Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18 edit

Template:Simi Valley, California edit

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy deletion. This is a copyvio of the article under both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA-3.0 unported licenses used here. Jesse Viviano (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simi Valley, California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This unused template simply contains a copy of the entire article on Simi Valley, California. I can't think of a remotely plausible use for this. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (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:Hidden infoboxes 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden infoboxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space, nor should it be. Despite the name this is actually being used on a handfull of talk pages to nest WikiProject banners, but should be replaced with the now standard {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. PC78 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/replace per nom. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rebuild Something like this would be nice for nesting things other than WPP banners, noticeboxes that are not WPP banners can be extensive (like multiple Article History templates for something with a lot of history), this would beat using {{tmbox}} combined with {{hidden}}. The WPBS template is distinctly for WPP banners since they have text that explain that they are for WPP banners. A generic version of that would be good. Replace existing usages for WPP banners with {{WPBS}} though. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I tend to agree with the above... if it's not being used in mainspace (which, it isn't), then I don't see what the real problem is. If a specific use bothers someone then they could simply replace it with WPBS. I guess that I just don't see a compelling reason that this needs to be deleted.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because infoboxes aren't something that should be hidden, because it thankfully isn't being used for that purpose, and because it's redundant for what it is being used for. This isn't a template for doing what the IP suggests, nor would it be the best way of doing that (something based on WPBS would be better, though I don't think it's something we should be necessarily be doing in the first place). It's basically an obsolete template for an unsuitable purpose. Why rebuild it into something completely different and unrelated as opposed to just creating a new template? PC78 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, infoboxes are hidden, several of the ones that exist on Wikipedia have a "hidden" parameter to hide sections of infoboxes. As for what I was suggesting to do with the current one, that's why I said rebuild (ie, rebuild it with a genericized version of the code for WPBS) 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:01, 18 December 2009 (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:John Most 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. NW (Talk) 17:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Most (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all articles have been deleted as non-n Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all the links in it are deleted or red-linked. Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navbox with no valid links. Even the categories it is placed in are redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (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:Container category 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Container category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a WP maintenance template and it shows up in article namespace categories. readers need not see this particular maintenance banner. It would be better to have all of the member categories placed in Category:Parent categories as a hidden category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if there is consensus that this template should not be used in article namespace categories (a notion with which I disagree), the template would still be useful for categories for other namespaces. Moreover, as the purpose of this template is to clearly indicate that a category should contain only subcategories and a few directly-related pages, hiding the message in some way (e.g., by using only a hidden category instead) defeats that purpose. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon, and keep on using it in the relevant article namespace categories, and don't hide it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this banner particularly useful to indicate that only subcategories (and a few directly-related pages) should be placed in the relevant category. However, it would be helpful if some sort of automatic warning could be generated to advise a user that he had place an article is a container category. Davshul (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this banner would be far less useful if hidden. --Beloved Freak 17:53, 21 December 2009 (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:Economy of Sri Lanka table edit

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Sri Lanka table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recreation of a previously-deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 20#Template:Economy of Sri Lanka table) template which I am bringing here (instead of speedy deleting under criterion G4) only because I was the nominator and only participant in the linked deletion discussion. The deletion rationale still applies, however: "single-use infobox used only in the article Economy of Sri Lanka. Per ample precedent and consensus, single-use templates should be subst'ed and deleted." I have already substed the single transclusion, so this template is now unused. (Template creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this should have been deleted a long time ago.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2009 (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:Ram Truck Timeline 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 as not yet useful. Since such a template may be useful in the future, I am happy to userfy a copy upon request. RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ram Truck Timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the Ram division was created just this year, there is no point in having a timeline template for a single year since it provides no information of value. --Sable232 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it would be inappropriate to list Ram Division products in any other template. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fuck this shit. I'm sick of arguing on it, it's ridiculous. You want to remove it - go ahead, remove it. Send my two hours of work in waste. See if I fucking care.Shadiac (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the first comment - I think it's perfectly appropriate to list Ram branded trucks with Dodge branded trucks, at least for the first year. Practically nothing has changed other than removing the "Dodge" labels. Not to mention a one-year timeline is rather useless. Shadiac, WP:COOL. --Vossanova ^o< 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nah, fuck this shit. Shadiac (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2010 (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:Tina Fey 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) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tina Fey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template makes absolutely no sense, and is entirely redundant. It is clumsy and is entirely inelegant to add this template to all those articles. It also adds nothing to those articles. By this logic, why not create an Angelina Jolie template? Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I won't say that the template makes no sense, but it clearly includes links to a number of articles that are only slightly related to Fey. If the template were cut down to more clearly relevant links, then I would expect five links total (main article, 30 Rock, Mean Girls, her Palin impersonation, and Liz Lemon). That is marginal for a navbox, and Mean Girls is arguable (she wrote the screenplay but didn't produce or direct), so I'm not saying 'Keep' or 'Delete'. However, if the template is kept, it should be on the condition that it be limited to articles where Fey is a major contributor to the subject: shows she wrote/directed/produced, characters she created, etc. If she was just a participant (actor, student, etc.), then the article should not be part of this navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ACTOR has a long running consensus not to use navboxes for work by persons under its provenance, except for work by film directors. Since the listings do not meet that criteria, the consensus is to delete such templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an actor filmography template (precedent: 1, 2). Actor filmographies are not appropriate topics for templates because: (1) due to the fact that many actors star in a single film or television series, adding a template for each one would cause immense clutter on articles about films and television series; and (2) such templates contain information that is significant in the context of the article about the actor or actress (in this case, Tina Fey), but that is trivial in the context of articles about films and TV series. For example, while it is significant in the context of the article Tina Fey that Fey starred in both Baby Mama and The Invention of Lying, that information is far less significant in the context of the article Baby Mama. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, Keep. I hesitate to say this, however. Expand the navbox (with relevant, important information) if possible. If not, then Delete. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (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:Control cities 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 as no longer used. RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Control cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated per WP:USRD/STDS. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No practical use anymore. ---Dough 48 72 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not in use on any article pages. --LJ (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For those not familiar, control cities have been a source of frustration and contention in road (and similar) articles for years. The WP:USRD project finally reached consensus to just get rid of them, after many rounds of discussion. I support any effort to prevent them from coming back. Dave (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (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.