Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22 edit

Template:Valenzuela City evolution of area 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 per db-author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valenzuela City evolution of area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the creator and only editor of this template, I request deletion because I already included it on Valenzuela City. Because of this inclusion, the template will be orphaned and it is unclear that it will be used on other articles.JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:33, 22 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:India-squash-bio-stub 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 Moved to SFD. Discussion of stub types belongs at Stub Types for Deletion. Accordingly, I am duplicating this entry and the comments to date at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/December/22, and leaving this closed discussion as a marker for anyone who comes here looking for it. (Non-admin close.) RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-squash-bio-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should not have existed, article should use Template:Squash-bio-stub instead. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? This is how stub sorting works, see WP:WSS for more information. Note this template also sorts the article into Category:Indian sportspeople stubs. Borgarde (talk) 11:39, 22 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:TPATF 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 an insufficiently populated nabox. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's only 4 entries, and an upcoming video game. There's no sequels planned. I don't believe this justifies the film having its own navbox. Mike Allen 06:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there aren't enough links to justify a useful navigation box. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the template actually links only 3 articles directly related to its main subject: the film, the soundtrack and the title character. The other is a redirect to the soundtrack article and Disney Princess is a completely independent franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, too little content for a template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all links can be linked via the main article. Wiiki pe dian 01:58, 29 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:@ 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is being used on less than 100 pages (mostly user and user talk pages) to transclude Image:At sign.svg in email addresses even though one could just as easily (in fact, more easily) use the "@" sign on the keyboard. Replace with "@" and delete. (Template creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a protective measure against scraping spiders that collect for spam mail. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then would substing work? Would a bot recognise email addresses with an image inserted in the middle? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well... the code generated for

username{{@|12}}domain.name

looks like

username<a href="/wiki/File:At_sign.svg" class="image" title="@"><img alt="@" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/At_sign.svg/12px-At_sign.svg.png" width="12" height="12" /></a>domain.name

I'd bet a bot would have a hard time with that

- - As for subst-ing ...

username[[Image:At_sign.svg|12px|@]]domain.name

Which would generate the aforementioned lump of code, also being hard to parse.

- - But that wouldn't solve future concerns with such bots... if people still don't wish to be spambotted after the template is deleted... 70.29.211.163 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a potential arms race here, and {{@}} (without subst:) allows us to deploy any new weaponry against the axis of spam with a single edit. However, {{NoSpam|username|domain.name}}, which includes File:Nospam at.svg, does the job even better. Perhaps we should upgrade users of Template:@ to Template:NoSpam. Certes (talk) 12:31, 22 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:Greater Sydney Regions 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) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Sydney Regions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An editor has very recently unilaterally and completely unnecessarily replaced {{Sydney image with region labels}} with this template. It is visually unappealing, oversized and the labels are placed quite strangely (Eastern Suburbs, for instance). —what a crazy random happenstance 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——what a crazy random happenstance 05:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i created it to cover the greater sydney region over the original template which only covered out to the blacktown area. it can be resized as it is a template, and cna be recoloured if neccessary to make it more visually appealing, still less confusing than the aerial photograph that is there and only covers a partial area of sydney--Hatgreg (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply extend the aerial map (ie. replace it with a visually similar but broader map) in the original template? There was no need for a new one, and you didn't even replace the aerial photograph consistently, meaning some articles used the old and some the new templates. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the aerial map would lack consistancy because of the way that aerial photographs are taken, and layered, one would also need to take a broader view of it, as extending westward would also mean, for consistency to extend north and south somewhat. also, if it where a different colour variation this image may be more visually appealing as it is less busy and landmarks would be more visiually distinguishable than that of an aerial photograph. also i don't understand what you mean by the strange placing of eastern suburbs, the people of maroubra certainly do not identify with the people of rose bay--Hatgreg (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People of Maroubra (myself included) most certainly do, do you even live in Sydney? I say that not as an attack, but because you don't seem to be very familiar with the regions. For the record, the entirety of Waverley, Woollahra and Randwick councils are universally and without fail considered Eastern Suburbs, and the CBD is sometimes added to create a "City & East". From Watson's Bay to La Perouse people think of themselves as Easterners (as opposed to Westies and the strange furry creatures which inhabit the North). Like I said, by extending the map I mean replacing it with a visually similar but different map. If you want to replace it with a schematic map, that's great, but I'm afraid it's going to have to be better than this JPEG monstrosity. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:47, 15 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) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to {{Sydney image with region labels}}. If there is a problem with that existing, in-use template, then the solution is updating that template as needed, not creating a new, redundant template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 29 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:UAAP 72 men's badminton 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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UAAP 72 men's badminton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates these as this are created iff the ladder/team standings table has to be replicated across to or more articles. Since these are located at only one article, there's no need for these to be templated.

Also included:

–Howard the Duck 18:20, 13 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) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. This content is fine, but single-use tables do not need to be created as templates. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 29 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.