Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 19

< December 18	December 20 >

December 19 edit

Template:Cal State Northridge bowl games 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) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cal State Northridge bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with a single redlink Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no edits since it was created in February, and it is a navbox with only one link, which doesn't even exist. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 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:Cabinet Dufaure I 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) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabinet Dufaure I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure III (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure IV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure V (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Broglie I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Broglie II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet Broglie III (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, with no parent articles (Dufaure I Cabinet, ...)? Note that all the cabinet members are listed on Jules Armand Dufaure and Albert, 4th duc de Broglie, so no information would be lost. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 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:CWSL taxobox 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) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CWSL taxobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 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.

Interstate navboxes with three links 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I-69 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:I-71 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:I-74 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:I-77 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:I-89 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:I-93 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates serve to directly link three articles each, and in each case the primary routes have links to the auxiliary routes, and vice versa. Delete as underpopulated navboxes. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for consistency purposes, and because with three articles, they still are useful. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that "consistency" is a suitable reason to keep underused and underpopulated templates hanging around. I'm also not convinced of the utility of navigating between auxiliary routes that aren't even connected. With the detailed descriptions and exit lists, those that are are already well-linked. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry that you're not convinced. Having the same template provides the user a consistent location where the links are always located. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In this case, there are enough links within the template to justify its existence. ---Dough4872 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boxes with only four or five relevant links are routinely deleted. Why should these three-link boxes be different? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Becuase they provide a listing of all the Interstate's auxiliary routes, allowing one to navigate between the articles easily. The only Interstate auxiliary route templates that should be deleted are for Interstates with only one auxiliary route, as a navbox with one article is useless and can easily be served by one wikilink. ---Dough4872 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This doesn't explain why these two-item navboxes are technically different from the other two-item navboxes we've been deleting lately. Remember that TfD is primarily a technical venue. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - To explain my position, if the template includes more than one article other than the main article, then it has vaild reason to exist as it provides navigation. For example, in the I-71 template, I-71 is the main article and I-271 and I-471 are the auxiliary routes in the navbox. This template is useful for navigation as one reading the I-271 article can easily navigate to the main I-71 article or to the I-471 article. However, with the I-83 template, it was useless as the only other interstate than the main article is I-283. A link between one article and the other seemed more appropriate than a large navbox for I-83's auxiliary routes with only one listed. ---Dough 48 72 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the imagined use case of navigating between I-471 and I-271, being as they are not remotely connected? You also haven't answered the question I posed - what makes these templates different from other three-item navboxes, bearing in mind they are invariably deleted? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There are some readers who may want to flip between the various auxiliary routes of an interstate. Also, give me examples of other three-item navboxes that have been deleted. ---Dough 48 72 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll dig some up. In return, it's only fair that you suggest some other three-item navboxes that have been explicitly kept. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The most recent proposal for an equally-populated navbox I could find that was applicable was this one. I presume the "two-item" description does not include the head link as you have done (based on RL0919's characterisation of the previous auxiliary navboxes as "one-item"). Before that, there's this, this, this, and this. Go back further, and I'm sure you'll find more. This might be worth investigating further. In my book, that's more than adequate precedent such that you'd need to suggest why the templates at issue here are a special case, or why from a wiki-technical perspective an exception needs to be made. I don't buy your argument about readers wanting to flip between the articles, because I can't picture a use case that goes beyond curiosity that isn't already satisfied in other ways. If the highways are connected, they are already linked via the excellent route descriptions, complete exit lists, and well-stocked infobox - other links between the auxiliaries themselves just seems tangential to me. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In the first TFD, it mentions there is adequate interlinking between the two articles, there is not in the articles about the auxiliary interstates. Also, as Rschen mentioned, the templates should be kept for consistiency. ---Dough 48 72 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The central point of the TfDs I linked was that there were too few articles in each case to make a useful navbox. In this case, there are two. The "adequate interlinking" is irrelevant, since that's an issue that can be addressed by editing the articles, and in any case there certainly is adequate interlinking - if two highways are connected, there will be at least two links on each article pointing to the other. In the case of I-71, there are four links to and five from I-471, four links to and three from I-271. There are no direct links between I-271 and I-471, but since they are only tangentially related, and are over 200 miles apart, there's no real need for a link. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a need for a link from the navbox, in case a reader wants to navigate from I-271 to I-471. Don't just assume there is no need for navigation between the two articles. ---Dough 48 72 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've assumed there's no need for navigation because nobody has suggested a credible reason for it. As I've said, they're only tangentially related, so the need is on a par with navigating between actors in a TV series, and there is now an explicit consensus against this. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This discussion is just going around in circles. I stand by my decision to keep based on the fact that navigation between auxiliary routes is necessary and the fact that there are the minimum amount of links to make the navbox useful. I also agree with Rschen that they should be kept for consistiency based on the number of links. ---Dough 48 72 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's only going around in circles because you refuse to provide a supporting argument for your position, other than to say "I think we should keep it", with no reference to why the navigation is necessary. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've already stated why it is necessary to keep it. ---Dough 48 72 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other navboxes covering related lists. Sebwite (talk) 02:53, 31 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:CWL 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) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to [[ceb:{{PAGENAME}}]] Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 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:Oceanic gyres 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) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oceanic gyres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer used, details. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ocean Currents}} has been deleted. The replacement for this in fact is the confusingly named {{OG&C}}. A redirect seems reasonable to me unless the replacement is renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've named it that way for the fact that this template will be used in a large number of articles, thus a short name will slightly ease editing. I chose this type of name based on the similar titled, TBSW template. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:02, 24 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:British Latin American 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, without prejudice against a merge. Skomorokh 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Latin American (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Redundant to {{British Latin-Americans}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the navbox style what we should prefer? Or, actually... shouldn't both be included in appropriate articles? I'm leaning towards keep with the understanding that this will be added to (at least) the articles that are currently using {{British Latin-Americans}}.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge together, and put a switch in to select footer or sidebar style. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would suggest adding the orphaned one to the articles which use {{British Latin-Americans}}. As far as I can see there's only three articles using {{British Latin-Americans}} (British Chilean, British Peruvian and British Latin American), so that shouldn't be too difficult. Isn't using them both the correct procedure? More or less what Ohms law said, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:13, 30 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:Beta Sigma Psi Presidents 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. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beta Sigma Psi Presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template with no navigation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh... fix it (change the names to links) and Keep
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but unfortunately, the result would be nothing but red links. So, you would have to create all the articles as well. Sounds like putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't it be better to create a list in the Beta Sigma Psi article, and build up from there? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, yea, but... I ain't gonna cry if it ends up being deleted or anything, but even if it remains in it's current state, it's not as though it couldn't be fixed. If you see what I mean.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless several of the articles are created before this closes. There's no use for a navigation box with no articles to navigate to. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 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, JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to have it if there's no articles. If the articles are created, the navbox can always be re-created. The best idea's probably what Plastikspork said about adding a list at Beta Sigma Psi, and building it up from there. There's always the chance no-one will create the articles for years, and then we're left with a useless navbox. The template presents the info quite well, but it's better to actually have it incorporated into an article where people will see it (obviously), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:18, 30 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:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers season game log 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. Substitution seems unwise for a template so incomplete, but I will gladly userfy the content on request if an editor wishes to complete it for use in an article. RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, not much content. See {{Game log info}} for rationale about these being deprecated in other sports. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subst, then Delete
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 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:NYX (comics) 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) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYX (comics) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template linking 5 articles - Publisher, a single publication, and 3 characters. J Greb (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough article links for a whole template, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:07, 30 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:Megatokyo 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) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigation box linking 5 pages - main article, the wrtier/artist, and 3 lists. J Greb (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - Per nom, really. Also, it doesn't really look like a navbox. There's just something about it... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:11, 30 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:Rolling Stones' The 100 Greatest Guitarist Of All Time/ 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 as recreation of a page that was deleted via deletion discussion. — ξ ^xplicit 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolling Stones' The 100 Greatest Guitarist Of All Time/ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigational template, with a weird format that requires masses of clicks to view it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- several similar templates created by the same user, and all deleted, are listed on the talk page of the template's creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. This is presumably the same material already deleted as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 12#Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Guitarists Of All Time. I have tagged the template accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 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.