Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24 edit

Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-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. delldot ∇. 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete template that shows the same information as Template:Obama cabinet. Grsz ¹¹ 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ABC101090 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The intention of the template was to show the transition in order of appointment, it has been convoluted and no longer shows this and now fails its purpose. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The exact purpose for each template relating to the Obama administration cabinet (as listed below) is being discussed here. This template shows the current cabinet members only while also listing their department. It is unique to the "obama cabinet" template because it only shows current members and takes up much less vertical space. It is unique to the "current U.S. cabinet" template because it shows more context beyond the last names of each cabinet member. The order of this template has no bearing on whether it should be deleted; in addition this has yet to be decided on and standardized on the template's talk page. ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the exact same rationale for a change in my !vote in the TFD immediately below.... ↜Just me, here, now … 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these articles will be in flux for some time, and we shouldn't be deleting templates while they still might find uses. Let the dust settle and then delete any orphaned templates without dispute. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For now, as per Mike.--Peephole (talk) 21:14, 2 February 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:Obama cabinet 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 discussion was keep delldot ∇. 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obama cabinet infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are four Obama cabinet templates.
"Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template" is used within a bottom-of-the-page, parent template serving as a navigation banner (ie within [[Template:Obama Administration personnel) as well as independently as an in-article table at Presidency of Barack Obama. (Also note that there is also a completely different template, Template:Obama cabinet, that functions as a navigation template showing all US Cabinet offers, as they come and go, along with their dates of service -- as well as Template:Current U.S. Cabinet, which is a template that gives a list of the last names of present members of the US Cabinet. In any case IMO the one I've listed here would be the easiest to dispense with altogether of these 4 presently in existence. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the infobox is used at Barack Obama Cabinet and Presidency of Barack Obama in the same style as the George W. Bush articles. It is meant to be used in the article rather than at the bottom. Delete on of the others, not this one. Grsz ¹¹ 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep used in the pages of all other POTUS' and it's exclusion from Obama's page is beyond me. It's most likely because he hasn't had major points in his four-day administration. If I can find a way to substantiate the transition and what he's accomplished so far, I'll put it in. I'll repeat that Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template should be the template deleted and that discussion can be seen here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It serves the same function as the Bush administration ones, and is a useful quick-guide for readers to find information. I will readily admit it's too large, and needs visual tweaking. rootology (C)(T) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The infobox serves a useful function, why delete when you can improve it? --J.Mundo (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I (namely, this TFD's nominator) change my "!vote" to keep. With the number of editors watching Obama pages, surely the job of doing a few keyboard taps to update one extra template designed to fulfill a very specific function will find plenty of takers. (And the discussions related to the TFD posted immediately above this one have now convinced me that each existent Obama cabinet template fulfills a unique function. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't delete templates while the parent articles are still in flux. This template looks like it would have a special niche once there is some turnover in the Cabinet, since it can easily fit more than one person per position in a dated sequence. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of all the cabinet templates this is perhaps the clearest. Why delete something that works? Joshdboz (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. --Peephole (talk) 21:15, 2 February 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.

Bridge 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 Delete, once orphaned. I have deleted the one which is already orphaned; the instances of the other two should be converted to use {{Infobox Bridge}} and then the templates marked with {{db-xfd}}. Happy‑melon 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bridge2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bridges in Singapore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox U.S. Covered Bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Bridge}}, with which they should be merged. ('bridge2 has only two transclusions; 'Singapore has eight; 'Covered has ~45). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to orphan them first? Or orphan one from each one as an example and I'll finish the job. I noticed that they are parameters which don't exist right now in Infobox bridge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which parameters, in which template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In bridge2 for example i see: "Collapsed,"Preceded by", "Followed by" -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those three to {{Infobox Bridge}}. Any more? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges in Singapore contains "Chinese name" and "Contractor/construction". Maybe the first one is not useful and can put in parentheses in the official name. What about the second one?

Infobox U.S. Covered Bridge contains "state" and "county". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 5 February 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:Abc 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 Redirect {{abc}} to {{ABC}} (and move {{ABC template}} to {{ABC}}) --Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. As a far better worked-out alternative, there also is Template:ABC template. 78.34.140.134 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unnecessary--Chromenano (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --unnecessary and duplicative of a better template. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect {{abc}} to {{ABC}} (and move {{ABC template}} to {{ABC}}) as redundant. ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, makes the most sense. 78.34.137.140 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Psantora above - seems like the best solution. Terraxos (talk) 00:48, 28 January 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:Agorism wiki 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agorism wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused attribution template for a very partisan wiki website of questionable reliability. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we shouldn't be using this wiki as a source, as it doesn't seem reliable, so this template is best deleted before anyone does. Terraxos (talk) 00:47, 28 January 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:Grays 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 Redirect to {{Gray's}} (to preserve edit history per GFDL). --Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a lesser-used variant of the template {{Gray's}}, which references a specific edition of Gray's Anatomy (the 1917 edition). I don't think we need a template referencing a specific version of Gray's, especially not one which is infrequently used. It should either be deleted, or redirected to the more-commonly used template. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update--There were only three transclusions of this template in mainspace, and I removed them. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) as unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused or Weak Redirect per Andy Mabbett.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:21, 1 February 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:Nordisk familjebok 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nordisk familjebok (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is duplicative of the more-frequently used (and IMHO superior) template {{Owl}}. The problem is, there are two public domain versions of Nordisk familjebok, of which the "Iðunn" version is the first and the "Owl" version is the second. The nominated template makes no distinction between these two versions; however, as far as I know, no article on the English Wikipedia specifically references or links to the earlier "Iðunn" version. Both versions of the Nordisk familjebok are available online here, for those of you who are literate in Swedish. This template is only used in one mainspace article, and should either be deleted or redirected to the more-commonly used template. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update--I just removed the only mainspace transclusion of this template (there was only one). --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - apparently not needed at this time. If anyone creates an article that relies specifically on text from this edition of the encyclopaedia, it can be recreated. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 28 January 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.