Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6 edit

Template:Electronic art music-footer 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) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electronic art music-footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 6 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:Comp 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. Ruslik_Zero 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems useful, should be documented into the interlang documentation. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has a run-on :), also orphaned, although inter-language documentation doesn't sound like a bad idea. Airplaneman ✈ 17:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The community can certainly fix this problem! Let it stay and if we can't resolve the problem only then delete it. (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being orphaned was the main reason for my delete vote, not the fact that it had a run-on (although I did mention it). Airplaneman ✈ 00:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, and a look at the inter-wiki links for some actual composite pages suggests that the behavior it describes either doesn't exist or is limited to some specific pages, in which case a note could be added without a template. Maybe this was needed in 2005, but I'm not seeing a use for this at present. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thought about it, it is unused and it is orphaned (same thing actually), and it is a run-on. (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 22:55, 16 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:Communications in Morocco 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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Communications in Morocco table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, with all the information already in Telecommunications in Morocco Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of an infobox and template; it doesn't hurt and can easily be transcluded into the main article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - the infotemplate is a nice way to present info in Telecommunications in Morocco, but of little use elsewhere. Airplaneman ✈ 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no subst). The relevant information is already in the article and the table is not much of a summarization with its big block of prose. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 14 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:Commonwealth military ranks 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. Ruslik_Zero 14:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth military ranks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which appears to be redundant to {{Military ranks}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "military ranks" is a highly POV name for something only for the Commonwealth. The military ranks template should be expanded to cover a more inclusive topic. Instead, usage of "military ranks" in Commonwealth articles or articles where it is used for Commonwealth ranks, should be replaced with this template name. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to {{Military ranks}} Airplaneman ✈ 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to a template that is in use. If the naming of {{Military ranks}} is problematic, it could always be moved to a new name, even to this name once it becomes available. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 16 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:Common definition of Asian box 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) 01:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common definition of Asian box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 6 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:Common chords 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) 01:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common chords (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation with only redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 6 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.

Bfidb templates 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) 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bfidb event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb organisation credit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb organisation event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb eventseries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb organisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb series event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bfidb title synopsis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 6 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.

TxHwy 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) 01:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TxHwy/top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/middle/databox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/border (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/city (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/closed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/concurrent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/deleted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/interconcurr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/mutual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/color/unconstructed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/colspan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/county/style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/databox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/middle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/name/FM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/name/RM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/name/SL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/name/SS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/place/only (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TxHwy/routebox/road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old orphaned templates. A search in the TFD logs results in a discussion from back in 2006. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 6 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:VSEPR 2D 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.

Template:VSEPR 2D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Not sure if it is of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:01, 6 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:Provinces and Districts of Sri Lanka 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. The consensus of the discussion below is clearly keep. However, there is an obvious redundancy to the other templates mentioned. I would encourage a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka to resolve which templates are to be used, then either redirect the disfavored template(s) or nominate them for deletion. No prejudice against renominating this template if that is the consensus of project discussion. RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Provinces and Districts of Sri Lanka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Separated Provincial and district templates exist. Blackknight12 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: These separate templates were created today, duplicating this original template. I suggest improving the current template, and deleting the two new. Restoring to the way it was improves inter-linking between articles and accessibility. Rehman(+) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template is adequate; the necessary information can be presented in this without splitting it into two. The only reason for making the new templates seems to be to include former administrative divisions, which can just as easily be included here. The new templates (Template:Provinces of Sri Lanka and Template:Districts of Sri Lanka) are confusing, particularly the latter which now has provinces and districts mixed up. This one is clearer and less messy. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Only the Districts of Sri Lanka template was created today, and this is not the original template. It is the norm to have separated first and second level administrative divisions templates, and there are also extra information included like former and historical provinces and Districts (that have not yet been added). Also separated templates will not compromise inter-linking between articles and accessibility.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The preceding vote may be considered invalid. As it is placed by the nominator itself. Rehman(+) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - delete the two separate templates (Template:Provinces of Sri Lanka and Template:Districts of Sri Lanka, which are up for CSD right now). Having all of the info on one template is simpler and provides a wider choice of information for the reader. Airplaneman ✈ 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one and delete the other two per nom and with a view to incorporating former admin divisions per Chamal. Orderinchaos 15:44, 12 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:Infobox enemy 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) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox enemy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox emmy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used in any articles, and no potential uses are documented on the template page. BigDom 09:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not used anywhere, and doesn't seem like it can be used anywhere. Rehman(+) 12:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the two comments above. Though it should be noted that there is a double of this template (Template:Infobox emmy), which I should think be deleted along with with the one being discussed in this TFD (if this one does get deleted which it's likely to do). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the counterpart template. Both of these are counter to the trend towards retaining an out-of-universe perspective in infoboxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - orphaned, no potential uses. Airplaneman ✈ 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Quite an unusual template; where in the world would anyone expect this to be used? Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 13 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:No dedits 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) 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No dedits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like an old template, no longer needed per this discussion, near as I can tell. Avicennasis @ 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused, now superseded (in linked discussion). Airplaneman ✈ 17:56, 11 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:NavUSA 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 other two redundant versions mentioned in the discussion have been boldly redirected to Template:USANav by User:WOSlinker. If deletion of them is desired, they may be taken to WP:RFD or un-redirected and listed here. RL0919 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure of purpose, currently unused.. Avicennasis @ 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There's another version at {{USNav}} that is actually in use and also a suffix version at {{USANAV}}. All by the same author. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's also a Navbox version by a different author at {{USANav}}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to USANav - I've expanded the functionality of {{USANav}} and have replaced all the usages of {{USNav}} & {{USANAV}} and redirected those two templates. So could do the same with this one or delete it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{USANAV}}, {{USNav}}, and {{NavUSA}} as they are all now superseded by {{USANav}}. Airplaneman ✈ 18:07, 11 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:NLN 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) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. Avicennasis @ 08:07, 6 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:NANWP 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 Userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be unused... Will also place note on this Wikiprojects Talk page... Avicennasis @ 08:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator (admin) User:Phaedriel has been off-wiki for some time. She created the Wikiproject also. First time I've seen it. It's an invitation to editors who seem to be interested in these topics, to join the project. She was likely its main user, as she was avid on this project. Curious it's not in use by others who are still active with the project, but I think the project, while active as a whole, is somewhat leaderless at this time. I made a correction to the grammar on it. Maybe some others will ring in. I might use it if the consensus is to keep. Duff (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Since it is currently specific for one user, should be move into user space. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per WOSlinker. Airplaneman ✈ 18:10, 11 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:Cosmic Era mobile weapons 2 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 Template:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, and not sure why it's not named {{Cosmic Era mobile weapons}}, which is a redirect? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. The content of the template was trimmed and merged there. —Farix (t | c)
    • I've removed all of the redirects in the template. This template hadn't been cleaned up since the merges began. —Farix (t | c) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Farix. I looked pretty thoroughly (or so I thought) back when we were cleaning up all the Gundam navboxes for orphaned cases like this; I have no idea how I missed it... 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Standard cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Would deleting also be an option, as it is unused anyway? Airplaneman ✈ 18:15, 11 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:Colonial Malacca 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 Delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colonial Malacca Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused template, which is probably redundant to something else. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:51, 6 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:ESPNRISE_2000s_All-Decade_boys_basketball_team 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) 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESPNRISE_2000s_All-Decade_boys_basketball_team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are a bunch of lists made by sport magazines every single year, this list does not merit having a template. Also, the single external link doesn't even work. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 03:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the external link is rotten; it's not likely that ESPN will recreate it. However, it's properly cited; a rotten external link is still a valid reference if it's properly cited. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 13 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:Un-retired 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. Prior consensus was to delete and that is the prevailing view this time as well. If someone wants to add features to another template to provide this type of functionality, that is an editorial decision, but it should not be done just to appease one editor's desire to recreate deleted content. Editor misbehavior, such as persistent recreation of deleted material without deletion review, is a matter for another venue, but re-creations are likely to be speedy deleted, and the name may be salted if it is an ongoing problem. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Un-retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template previously deleted on April 16, 2009 (almost a year ago) per this TfD discussion. Recreated dispite discussion. Requesting that it be deleted...again. NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge "un-retired", {{semi-retired}} and {{retired}} into one template, with an option switch to choose your activity level, and add semi-active and active, so you can figure out whether any message you left might be read. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I spoke to the person who recreated the template. He is opposed to the petitoner's request and told me, that if he continues to press his case for deletion of the template, he will continue to re-create it over Neutralhomer's objections and bypass the rest of the system by requesting an arbitration case be opened. This I agree, may be the only way to settle this once and for all. Binding arbitration seems the only solution to end this controversy. 68.236.155.129 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If the person who recreated the template creates it again after it is deleted (if it is this time around), I will personally take them to ANI for disruptive editing...plain and simple. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per 65.94.253.16. Hi878 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sounds like the best course of action to me. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If a user wants to note how they have un-retired on their page, they should be allowed to, it's not like we're putting them on main pages.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well technically speaking, the "Retired" tags aren't needed at all. A simple "I'm un-retired" or "I've retired" on ones user page would suffice, an entire template for retired, semi-retired and un-retired users is just taking up unnecessary template space really. But I know that these tags are fairly widely used so I'd still !vote at Merge. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per 65.94.253.16. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per 65.94.253.16. Seems like a sound idea. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Delete After more consideration, while I think that 65.94s idea is good, I think that the rational in the original, as argued below, is still very valid. If someone is coming out of retirement, just remove the retired template, no need to actually use this. Sodam Yat (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the original deletion discussion here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale in the original deletion request was cogent; discouraging drama is difficult, but not actively encouraging it with look-at-me templates like this is simple and beneficial to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the original discussion, which raises valid points. Airplaneman ✈ 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. IMO this is about as silly as it gets. If someone wants to have such a thing on their page they're welcome to code it themselves in user space - a fair few userboxes and such things are done that way. Orderinchaos 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is very silly, not productive. If you're not retired just remove the {{retired}} template... (Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)babylarm 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A mege of the three templates would be more productive than axing one with the chance that it might reappear again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Making a "mega template" just because we are told by some sock (confirmed by an SPI by the way) that they will remake the template is just silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If they show up and recreate a template that has been deleted twice, and get disruptive about it, I'm sure they'll find themselves "retired' again. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 15 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:Stickfigure 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 year old practically unused template with no forseeable usage. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 6 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:SACC 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. The arguments for deletion, besides having less numerical support, were often based on the status of the editor who created the template. This individual was indef blocked on multiple accounts for username violations and block evasion, neither of which are content-related issues, and no policy or precedent supports the blanket deletion of content created by blocked users before they were blocked. While consensus of the discussion favors keeping a navigation template on this topic, it does not preclude relatively radical editing of its content, possibly including a reformat into a collapsible navbox instead of a sidebar. These are matters for regular editorial discussion in a more appropriate venue. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SACC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. The template was created by a User who is now blocked. It is an orphan and it is contentious. (see the talk page.) Also, the template does not do the topic any justice, especially in its current form. The set of links area very small subset of the related articles and also have a geographical bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even where a contributor may be 'now blocked', that has no bearing. The only significance of block to a deletion reason is where contributions are made AFTER block. There hasn't been blocking of a user, only of a name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.252.19 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 April 2010
  • Delete - per nom. It is nothing more than a disinfobox, being added indiscrimately to articles and does not materially contribute to those articles. --Morenooso (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. User was blocked with a promise of an immediate unblock should he change his username, so that shouldn't stand as a reason to delete. Template is shouty and was created in blatantly bad faith, but a more understated version might pass muster. Şłџğģő 02:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the concept is not inherently flawed, but this box has problems of the wrong format, the wrong content, and problematic existing placement, making it a questionable thing to build off of. I'm not sure it would be better to try to fix all its flaws rather than burning it down and thus create fertile ground for building again... and then I find Template:Abuse cases, which covers strongly-overlapping ground, and seems to make this unnecessary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Given that your alternative template is a redlink, shouldn't your vote be KEEP?--Michael C. Price talk 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accidentally stuck a spare character in there. Have now corrected... and the link is perfectly blue. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a usefui collection of links. --Michael C. Price talk 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disruptive product of a disruptive editor. There are much better means of providing useful links to related articles, such as collapsible navboxes, as discussed at this template's TP. RashersTierney (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is not the best template; there really needs to be a template of this nature for the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases articles. Information is spread over too many articles for there not to be a template at the top of the page to direct users to other articles with information pertinent to this topic.Mrbusta (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not the strongest keep I have ever !voted, but a keep nonetheless. We need to walk past the alleged motivation of the originator and take this template at face value. The question to be asked is twofold, in no particular order: (a) does it add value? (b) Is any other template a better template for this group of articles? I believe that it adds value and that no other template is a better template. Others have mentioned {{Abuse cases}}, a template with a broader scope and a different scope, but one where overlap exists. I see each as a distinct entity. SACC will not be on all articles where Abuse Cases is used and useful, and the reverse is true. SACC is limited to Roman Catholic abuse, whereas Abuse cases, while currently filled with that topic, is broader, much broader. So I see no conflict, I see intersection not duplication, and I see value. So why is this "not the strongest keep"? Because SACC is simply useful. It is not essential. But it is a mechanism where a researcher might navigate Wikipedia the more easily to find grouped articles. And such alternative navigation routes are much to be desired. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disruptive content from a blocked editor. The information can be presented in a variety of different ways, all of which would be more useful than this template. Onopearls (t/c) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful collation and starting point for learning about the rich and growing subject matter that is Catholic sexual abuse. Wikipedia has a fine collection of learning materials on that subject, which this template showcases in simple, accessible format. With recent amendment this template has evolved into something indispensable to appreciating the scope, history and impact of a high priority of concern in contemporary affairs. I think it may also draw editors into researching the field and contributing to the betterment of those articles listed on the face of it.Ben16R esign (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Sock of the blocked editor who created this template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The broader Template:Abuse cases is much better that the contentious Template:SACC. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think that the Abuse Cases template is a terrible template. It's overly broad and connects abuse cases that have absolutely nothing in common with each other. Fully two thirds of the abuse cases template deals with the Catholic Abuse cases. Go take a look at it.Mrbusta (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the creator of this template has now been blocked. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't be accepted as a deletion reason. Creator wasn't blocked, only the creator's username choice was. Certainly not created or even developed in violation of a block.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.252.19 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 April 2010
  • Keep: It could use a facelift, but it's still a useful group of links.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep: It has a useful limited set of links and differs from the scope and perspective of {{Abuse cases}}--Penbat (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the argument that a deletion is necessary because the creator has been blocked is bizarre. All arguments that are not based upon the template itself are, surely, irrelevant, and should thus be disregarded. It should stay or go on its own merits, not because of the people who edited it. If notability is not inherited then nor is notoriety. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The initiator, originally soft blocked for breach of policy regarding Usernames has been indef. blocked for two instances of sock puppetry at this discussion, in a flagrant attempt to influence this deletion debate. Deletion of contribs as a sanction against socking is frequently considered a sufficiently valid reason to remove edits irrespective of merit. RashersTierney (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To change username because of the blocking of that name is in no way to 'sockpuppet'. Because the username referred to user Ben16 who hadn't even complained or obected, even the blocking of the username lacked compelling rationale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.252.19 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 April 2010
      • The user was blocked not because of anything to do with the SACC template. The user was blocked because his name was inappropriate. This is what sparked the deletion debate. The user created a sock puppet only after the deletion debate started. The user was definitely disruptive. The template box, though, is no longer in the form that the user created. I don't understand why there is a deletion debate. It looks to me like the arguement is that we should delete the template because the user was blocked. I don't see that as a reason to delete under the deletion guidelines but it is the number one reason given in this debate as to why we should delete the template. Mrbusta (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • While several commentors have mentioned the block, only one mentioned that as sole reason for deletion. Template was contentious even before user was blocked. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The nominator did more than mention it. It featured first in the nomination; all else was an 'also'. Others have given it more than a passing mention, and it seems to be being given undue weight. What I want to do my best to do is to make sure that the closer of this discussion deals only with the arguments about the template. I don't much care about the sockpuppet part or the blocking. I care about the discussion about the template, not the editor(s) who created and edited the template. We need a clear cut consensus on whether the template itself should stay or go. The closer should clarify that the blocked and alleged disruptive status of the creator has no bearing on the discussion, and that those !votes are irrelevant and have been ignored (or those parts have been ignored). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, not all else was an 'also' in the nomination; 'also' was not invoked until the third sentence. And this discussion is not limited to what you care about. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But organize it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.25.117 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the caveat that it ought to be improved. The template does not violate NPOV or CIVIL and is not redundant to a better designed template. The status of the creator has no bearing on the template. (The argument that contributions by subsequently blocked users would eviscerate Wikipedia, especially in controversial topics like this one.) --Danger (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have noted, there needs to be a separate grouping for the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals as opposed to other cases of child sex abuse. It is a distinct subset and spans multiple articles, which needs some kind of grouping and a guide to link them together. It would be inappropriate to use the proposed umbrella abuse case template because as others have noted it links articles that would be less relevant to this particular subgenre. It seems that most of the arguments to delete are based on the user being blocked, which apparently did not even happen, and is irrelevant in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifter0x0000 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the collection of links is indeed useful, although it needs to be reformatted into a standard navbox. Airplaneman ✈ 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with weak keep per Airplaneman above--this should be converted into a standard collapsible navbox. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on concept, I'm completely in agreement with a few posters who have suggested improvements to the design and content. (I should note I found this AfD through a sockpuppet trail, though one almost definitely unrelated to the originator - a few of the recently editing accounts' additions and changes should be checked by a knowledgeable editor.) Orderinchaos 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is relevant to the subject of the main article. Don't want to help cover this up from general public.Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cr!mson King. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cr!mson King and Eraserhead1, though a bit of reordering might be needed. ShawnIsHere (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the assumption that there is a "keep" consensus here, any restructuring of SACC will need to be thrashed out to reach a separate consensus on the SACC talk page as there may be diverse opinions about this.--Penbat (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template, original argument to delete seems silly and irrelevant to the merits of whether it should be kept. If it's truly an orphan, maybe the better thing to do is find someone to 'adopt' it. Almondwine (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Orphaned, no. Notable, yes. Needs revision, maybe. But that's a content issue, not an TfD issue. --John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Disruptive POV pushing/trash/attack template created by a disruptive user named User:ResignBen16 (and User:Ben16R esign and User:ImpeachBen16) who has been hard-banned because "user is not here to build an encyclopedia"[1] and whose "contributions" should obviously be deleted as well per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. It is also a Wikipedia:Disinfobox as pointed out by others. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:12, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_6&oldid=1211536258"