Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19 edit

Template:Anghelidi 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) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned hard-coded citation Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to no longer be used in Artificial intelligence, so the only cost of deleting it is breaking a few old revisions in that article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 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:2009 Gregor George Cup 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Gregor George Cup Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009 Eric Spilstead Shield Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates, could be merged with an article if there was one which could use this table. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:47, 19 January 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:CardsWiki 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. Since the template is unused and there have been no objections to deletion, treating as the equivalent of a well-advertised prod. RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 19 January 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:ActingFilmography-vg 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. Since the template is unused and there have been no objections to deletion, treating as the equivalent of a well-advertised prod. RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ActingFilmography-vg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 19 January 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:Cantonese-tiyjp 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 Relisted at today's TfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cantonese-tiyjp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of a series of language templates for Cantonese... I would say merge to {{zh}}, since that template is missing IPA and SAMPA, and does not support Cantonese Yale, so it is missing functionality (or a separate Cantonese unified-template needs to be created) 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 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:Protected Areas of Maryland 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 No consensus, with the suggestion to continue discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protected Areas of Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Maryland waters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Maryland museums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose rearranging Template:Protected Areas of Maryland and several others to style of Template:Baltimore, having one (or several) for each county displaying several features.
This is not a deletion or merger proposal, but rather a plan to develop a discussion on the possibility of re-organizing how these templates are themed. Currently, each of these templates focuses on one theme, such as protected areas, bodies of water, museums, etc, all within the entire state. Maryland has 23 counties and one independent city; most other states have a lot more. Already, each template has grown to be quite large. What I am proposing is that each county have its own template listing everything as such within that county. Sebwite (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in part. County-level templates may make sense for cultural features, but these would be problematic for geographic/natural features such as Template:Maryland waters. Water bodies are frequently assessed, and often are better understood, at a larger scale, such as statewide. Water bodies are subject to state-level laws and each state has an agency (Dept. of Natural Resources or Environment) responsible for water quality programs. Regarding template size, the Md. Waters template is not quite as large as Template:Protected Areas of Maryland, but in either case, features can be added to make them manageable, e.g. sub-sections can be used to hide selected portions. For an example see Template:Potomac River System. I'm not opposed to county-level templates for cultural features such as government, museums, sports facilities, etc. But the Waters of Maryland template is very useful in its current form. Moreau1 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:33, 19 January 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:Free_use_rationale 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) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan unused and confusingly named. All pages using this have been migrated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Non-free use rationale}} is the good one, and all uses of this template has been replaced. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 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:Interwiki links 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 Speedy delete per G7 and T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwiki links table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (except in sandboxing), unmaintained (other than a formatting twiddle several months ago by a third-party cleanup gnome) since March 2007, and consequently largely nonsense (mostly links to redlinks, and many of the bluelinks are to things that do not match what this template thinks they are because the names have long since been usurped). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as endorsement by author... this was a test template to check name uses in a scheme for common template names and functions between sister sites. The purpose was to be able to write cross-wiki links using precisely the same syntax so text and hyperlinks would be portable in between all sister sites— mainly as an aid to common template documentation. With Wikiproject template sharing is effectively dead and buried, obviating any future need. Further, since I'm effectively rarely here anymore and no one else is likely to use many of these, delete it with my blessings. Happy new year, btw - Frank // FrankB 22:59, 19 January 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:Marcelo 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) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused (formerly single-use, in the article Real Madrid C.F. season 2007–08) templates that consist only of a piped link to a biography of a footballer. There is no real advantage to transcluding a template in an article insteading of simply adding a wikilink in the standard way. Per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." (Template creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because unused If they were used, this would be otherwise strong keep, since this sort of typing-aid template is quite common and they do in fact provide an "advantage" (reduction of repetition of long sequences) or they wouldn't exist. These templates do not "masquerade as article content". (What that passage means is, for example, writing a paragraph on the founding of Albuquerque and then transcluding that into Albuquerque#History and New Mexico#Albuquerque.) It's a bit unusual to create typing-aid templates for long-winded biographical article names, but there's no policy or guideline against it, and we do it for all sorts of other things, as the category for such templates shows. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:20, 19 January 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:Cory in the House 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) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cory in the House (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Underpopulated template that links only 4 articles (the main article, a list of characters, a list of episodes, and a special), plus links to other TV series that do not use the template. The lists and the special are linked in the main article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 05:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless. Such templates do not actually aid navigation, since the category for such articles is very simple and uncluttered, and there are so few of them they can all easily link to one another in prose, too. It's just templatespace fancruft. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:22, 19 January 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:Sonny With a Chance 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) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonny With a Chance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Underpopulated template with only 5 links, 2 of which are redirects to the main article. The other 2 are a list of episodes and a list of characters. Both links are linked in the main article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sense in linking three articles with a navigation box, when they are linked together through the main page. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 05:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless. Such templates do not actually aid navigation, since the category for such articles is very simple and uncluttered, and there are so few of them they can all easily link to one another in prose, too. It's just templatespace fancruft. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:22, 19 January 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.