Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28 edit

Template:NJT line ndir/Main 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The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as superceded by switch statement in {{NJT line ndir}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJT line ndir/Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/22nd Street-Hoboken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Bergen County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Gladstone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Hoboken-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Montclair-Boonton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Morristown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Newark City Subway Broad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/North Jersey Coast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Northeast Corridor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Pascack Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/Raritan Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line ndir/River LINE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 28 April 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:NJT line pdir/Main 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The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as superceded by switch statement in {{NJT line pdir}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJT line pdir/Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/22nd Street-Hoboken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/22nd Street–Hoboken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Bergen County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Gladstone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Hoboken-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Montclair-Boonton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Morristown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Newark City Subway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Newark City Subway Broad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Northeast Corridor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Pascack Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/Raritan Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJT line pdir/River LINE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 28 April 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:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 66 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Preserved 20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates, which are largely redundant to the information already appearing in the infobox in British Rail Class 66. Any useful additional information should be merged there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The first six are redundant as stated by the nom. They were presumably intended for use if the subclasses of British Rail Class 66 were ever given individual articles, but this seems unlikely and templates wouldn't really be necessary anyway. The seventh is somewhat different, but appears to be a copy of a list already found in British Rail Class 20 which would only ever be used on that page. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:24, 30 April 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:Quebec English 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. The consensus of the discussion is that Quebec English is a regional variant of Canadian English that does not differ in many ways that would be significant for writing encyclopedia articles. Note: After deleting the template I intend to recreate the page as a redirect to Template:Canadian English, so the link will still be blue. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quebec English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete: This template is redundant there is already a template for this. It is at Template:Canadian English . Having a template for each reigon of Canada is redundant and unnessisary. There are not seperate templates for reigons of the United States, and even though there are different dialects in the United States the template Template:American English is enough. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not redundant, considering that Quebec English is different from Canadian English. And why does the situation in the US even matter? We have {{British English}} but we also have {{Scottish English}}, even though Scotland is part of the UK. There is even a second British English template! {{British English Oxford spelling}} - for variant British Spelling. Quebec English has demonstratably different spelling and wording from standard Canadian English. Quebec English has a prominent French influence on it, where standard Canadian has much less of one. Some words have pronounced spelling differences, where one is correct in one dialect and incorrect in the other. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit WAXy: {{Scottish English}} exists because there are specific instances of formal ScotEng prose which aren't found elsewhere which have resulted in heated discussion on WP (such as the infamous "outwith" debate); I don't see any indication that this has occurred here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quebec English appears to be little more than a regional dialect. The body of the article is completely unreferenced and composed of original research, and nothing tells me that this is a legit style, with accompanying grammatical rules, etc. The phrases described at that article, such as "He speak/talk to me yesterday", are basically slang derived from mixing the two languages (which happens with any two languages), and would never be used in an official context. I'd like to see an example of where Quebec English is currently used on Wikipedia. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I don't doubt that spoken Quebec English is distinct from other spoken varieties of Canadian English, I'd like to see good reliable evidence that edited, written English from Quebec is different from edited, written English from the rest of Canada. I really, really doubt it. +Angr 06:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simple to prove. Consinder the Montreal Gazette, an English newspaper from Quebec, and the Globe and Mail, a Canadian english language national newspaper. Globe and Mail: "quebecker" Montreal Gazette: "quebecker" the term "Quebecker" is unknown in Quebec, it is actually spelled Montreal Gazette: "quebecer" ; What is an "all dressed pizza"? (Yahoo question) ... something unknown to the Globe and Mail, but exists at Montreal Gazette. "Depanneur" Montreal Gazette Globe and Mail is solely associated with Quebec when used in English. A depanneur is a "bodega", a term not used in Quebec Montreal Gazette: "bodega" Globe and Mail: "bodega". ETC. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the article, it seems Quebec English is basically Canadian English with local slang and the use of more French words than usual. Given neither would be appropriate in an English encyclopedia, this template seems to have no real use as any encyclopedic article would actually use Canadian English. Reso lute 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Necessity not demonstrated. Student7 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what do you mean that WP:ENGVAR is not demonstrated? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ENGVAR is only an issue where there is a reasonable chance of someone changing one of our formal encyclopedia articles from one dialect to another. Where the only differences are in pronunciation and in slang lexicon, ENGVAR is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:49, 5 May 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:BS3-2afb 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS3-2afb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and broken— calls non-existant {{Prettytable-BS}} (although that is probably just a prettytable template on another wiki) -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was the predecessor of the overlay possibility now introduced into {{BS3}} ... axp_de ^Hello! 19:05, 28 April 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:BS2-2afb 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS2-2afb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(deletion request missing here ... difflink 1, difflink 2)

I guess this was the predecessor of the overlay possibility now introduced into {{BS2}} ... axp_de ^Hello! 19:12, 28 April 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:BS-2afb 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-2afb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and broken— calls non-existant {{Prettytable-BS}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was the predecessor of the overlay possibility now introduced into {{BS}} ... axp_de ^Hello! 19:05, 28 April 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:Divisor classes 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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divisor classes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(Virtually) unused, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still needed for proper formatting of old versions of articles that it used to be used on, and (with the deprecation tag) it does no harm to leave it undeleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, as per David Eppstein. Historical use is exactly why I tagged this template with Template:Tdeprecated rather than Template:Deprecated, and left the body of the template intact. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the template was just deprecated the day before nomination, I think keeping it would be fine for now. But it is not a general practice to keep templates indefinitely just to preserve the layout of old article revisions, so a re-nomination a few months down the road would be likely. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 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:Medical disclaimer 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical disclaimer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Against the guideline WP:NDA, not really used, and lacks categories. Sa^Mi ✉ 13:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in articlespace and unlikely to be. While it could be repurposed for use on the help desk and the like, I don't think that would require salvaging any code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 5 May 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.