Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

December 11 edit

Template:Lib 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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the template seems wrong, since both Australia and Canada have "Liberal Party"s, which are very different from the US conception of "liberal" (the Australian party is a right-conservative party, while the Canadian one is centrist and the big business party, the US considers liberal to be equivalent to "progressivist"; and libertarian usage differs in Canada and the US, not to mention Australia) It seems to be written by someone in the US who thinks they know Australia and Canada... 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and probably a bad idea. This sort of thing can be perfectly well handled with links to articles like Liberalism in the United States, Liberalism in Australia and Liberalism in Canada. Robofish (talk) 22:46, 17 December 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:Gudda Gudda 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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template of a deleted article. Karppinen (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article deleted. ➜Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - main article has been deleted, so the template is clearly unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 17 December 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:User WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads 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. Although this should have been listed at MFD, I don't believe the outcome would have been substantially different. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project has been upmerged into WP:ONRD. This template is no longer needed. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded. ➜Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably all the same, but aren't userboxes nominated at WP:MFD? 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see here. Mhiji (talk) 16:43, 15 December 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.

Romanian footballer 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian Defender of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Goalkeeper of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Striker of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Young player of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Young Player of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Come-Back of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romanian Fans of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every year appear dozens of newspapers and sites that award prizes in Romania, and after 2-3 years give up or dropped out awards. This award did not even know who was granted. The most important awards are granted by Gazeta Sporturilor since 1966. These are irrelevant. Jjmihai, talk 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes with only one link in each. Useless. Mhiji (talk) 22:36, 11 December 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:Manchester United 1999 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) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manchester United 1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the only football squad template for a team in the past. I don't know why it exists. Echetus Xe 15:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's because it's the season they won the treble. That still doesn't justify a unique squad template, though; there shouldn't be a separate template for individual years. Delete. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 17 December 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:Project Golden Horseshoe Roads 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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project Golden Horseshoe Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Golden Horseshoe roads project was upmerged into WP:ONRD. This is no longer needed. Imzadi 1979 → 09:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and loads of red links. Mhiji (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded. ➜Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:47, 11 December 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:Cho-writings 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) 07:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cho-writings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The two writings involved should be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Brownstone_(short_play); the template (and those writings) have no independent significance. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whether or not the articles are deleted, there is no need for a navigational template to link them. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally useless template. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:59, 18 December 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:NBA-por 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) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA-por (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used anywhere. I also don't see any usefulness. —Chris!_c/t 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. Just as easy to type it out. Mhiji (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could just type it out. ➜Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:49, 11 December 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:NBA-uta 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) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA-uta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used anywhere. I also don't see any usefulness. —Chris!_c/t 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. Just as easy to type [[Utah Jazz]]. Mhiji (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You just could type it out. ➜Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:49, 11 December 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:Tudeley-cum-Capel 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) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tudeley-cum-Capel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navigation box for three villages in the parish of Tudeley-cum-Capel in Kent, England. Each of each of the three village articles is a stub; they could (and probably should) easily be linked to each other without the clumsy device of the template. Apart from two redlinks (which should not be in a navbox) the other items in the template consist of a local historic mansion Somerhill House, along with a school now located there and various former owners of the house, none of whose biographies place much emphasis on the role of the house in their notability.

This is an unnecessary template. The house can be linked to from the articles on the neighbouring villages, and there can be links between Somerhill House and its owners. No navbox is needed here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my arguments for the retention of the Hollingbourne template below, the navbox is useful. The significance of any entry on the navbox is to Tudeley-cum-Capel, not to the linked subject. Tudeley-cum-Capel is a fairly modern invention, being formed by a merger between Tudeley and Capel (which includes Five Oak Green and ~~may~~ also includes Colt's Hill~~, which is not included as it may also fall under Paddock Wood~~). Inclusion of redlinks in the navbox is entirely within WP:REDLINK and WP:CLN, Both churches are Grade I listed buildings, which puts them in the top 1.7% of listed buildings in England. As such they would automatically meet WP:N should an article be created. Tudeley church is also notable because it is the only church in the world with stained glass windows entirely by Marc Chagall.

Somerhill House is also a Grade I listed building, and the second largest house in Kent. It has a long history with connections to many members of nobility. Many of the linked people owned Somerhill for a good number of years, so their inclusion is justified. IMHO, the keeping of The Schools at Somerhill separate from the history of the house is valid and desirable. One person on the template was not an owner of Somerhill, but was born in Tudeley. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have three villages and two churches and one house, and even if all those articles existed they don't need a template to be cross-linked; but so far this template only has four existing articles to link, because the owners of the house can be listed in the article on the house; they don't need to be prominently linked from all the other articles. This template solves no navigational problem: itis a template for its own sake, an un-needed artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: again, mjroots' argument seems the strongest argument for deletion of the template: "The significance of any entry on the navbox is to Tudeley-cum-Capel, not to the linked subject." If a reader is interested in the article The Schools at Somerhill they might want to click through to a link for the location of the schools (though there is actually no link to, or even mention of, Tudeley-cum-Capel or even Tudeley). They are highly unlikely to want to click through the template to a link to Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, provided in a template which makes no indication what his connection is with Tudeley-cum-Capel. The template adds nothing positive to the article, and is undesirable clutter. I encourage the creation of an article on the parish, which could be linked from the component villages. A place, or any other concept, should have an article before it has a template. PamD (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tudeley was linked from the article on The Schools at Somerhill. {{Tonbridge}} explains the situation. I will tweak that article to state that the building is actually within Tudeley, even though it is so close to Tonbridge. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each village or place in the world does not need a template, and multiple placename templates should not be added to biographical articles. Placing them on stubs tends to protect non-notable stubs from deletion. The templates are template spam, and they also tend to cause a problem balancing information in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems really to be an article masquerading as a navigational template. I note there is currently no article on Tudeley-cum-Capel; perhaps one should be written, in which all these links could be included. But I don't see the need to link them to each other in this way. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 17 December 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:Hollingbourne 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) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless template for a small village in Kent, England. There are so few articles on things relating to this parish that it was padded out with links to multiple sub-sections of an article on local mills, and to people with little relevance to the area. I removed that padding in these edits, which are explained in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. Note that the creator of this template has been busy following the essay WP:NBFILL and creating a series of similar templates for tiny villages in Kent. I suspect that many of the others are like this one: covering too small an area to be useful. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the original template. The significance of all entries on the template is to Hollingbourne, not of Hollingbourne to the linked entry. There is one redlink, the Church. It is arguable that historically, the church was the most important building in the village. Per WP:CLN, redlinks are allowed in navboxes. The inclusion of that redlink is in accordance with WP:REDLINK - the church would meet WP:N should an article be created on it.

Two of the people on the template were born in Hollingbourne, whilst the other two were rectors of Hollingbourne. It has been argued elsewhere that the connection with Hollingbourne is too slight, but as I said above, the significance is to the village, not the person. That any of the articles linked from the navbox need improvement is not a reason to delete the navbox.

Historically, the village mill was also an important building in the village. Windmills are more glamorous than watermills, and tend to get more coverage. Another difficulty with watermills is that they are inexorably wedded to the river system that they a located on, which is why the coverage of them is concentrated on the river, rather than having coverage under the town/village they served. My preference is to link each individual mill separately. In some cases, such as Ulcombe, the watermills were on different river systems (one on the Len, the other on a tributary of the Beult). Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates, the two rectors held the post for only a year each, at a time when the post was a sinecure. That means all they had to was receive the tithes, and they probably had people to collect them, so they are irrelevant to the history of the village; they are but a footnote in the history of the local church. Likewise, with the two who were born there: what exactly is the significance to Hollingbourne of someone who left in childhood, permanently, for another continent? It's worth a brief mention in a list-of-ppl-associated-with Holingb, but not something a prominent as a template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Mjroots says above: "The significance of all entries on the template is to Hollingbourne, not of Hollingbourne to the linked entry.". That's exactly the problem - the entries are significant to Hollingbourne, but Hollingbourne, and its related entries, are not particularly significant to the topic of the article, on which page the template is presumably intended to be placed, though I see that this template is not on the articles George Paine (civil servant) or John Boys (dean), who are listed in it (original version as linked above), so its function is unclear. Someone reading the article on one of the topics listed in the template will find there is a link to Hollingbourne. That article is the place to list "Notable people from Hollingbourne", and the reader would be better served by an item in that section listing them and describing their connection to the village. In the current state as of 02:29 this morning it now only has links which are strongly connected to the village, but it still seems pointless clutter, and a waste of effort which would be better spent on the village article itself. PamD (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that {{Hollingbourne}} was not added to the articles for the four people on it was in deference to objections from the nominator for the deletion of this template. The non-addition does not mean that I agree that the template should not be added to their articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each village in the world does not need a template, and multiple placename templates should not be added to biographical articles. Placing them on stubs tends to protect non-notable stubs from deletion. The templates are template spam, and they also tend to cause a problem balancing information in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as Ssilvers: 'each village in the world does not need a template'. There may technically be enough links here to justify a navigational template, but the lack of notability of the subject matter suggests otherwise. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 17 December 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.