Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 4

January 4

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) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jack Harkness stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not clear why Jack Harkness should, uniquely amongst the hundreds (thousands?) of Doctor Who characters, have a template for the stories in which he appears. ╟─TreasuryTagsheriff─╢ 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most companions who usually appear within a single elongated run of stories (as was the case for Sarah Jane until recently, bar The Five Doctors and K-9 and Company), Jack has appeared much more sporadically throughout the episodes since his introduction. Surely if we can have an Ood template, a template for Jack isn't that out of the question? TR-BT (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, she appeared mainly in a consecutive run, though also in Sarah Jane Adventures, School Reunion, The Stolen Earth, Journey's End, The End of Time - seems sporadic to me. And how about Mickey Smith, who has appeared sporadically? Or Jackie Tyler? Or Wilf Mott? It's neither helpful nor practical to do this for every user who doesn't appear in a consecutive run of episodes. ╟─TreasuryTagcabinet─╢ 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual characters do not need a navbox for appearances. Species and races are another matter. EdokterTalk 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what's so important about this particular character? or are we planning to create templates for other ones? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify into the Jack Harkness article, if people don't want to read the prose, they can have an easy to peruse list. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No other companions have this honour, and the only other character who does is the Master, as his stories chronicle a thread of storylines within the show. Jack doesn't really do that, does he. U-Mos (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Love the character, but his appearance in an episode is not a good basis for a navbox. He is not the major focus of most of these episodes, so most of them are being linked based on a minor or even trivial connection. There is also the concern about navbox clutter on episodes where a number of recurring characters appear, if we started making the mere appearance of a character the basis for a navbox. I'm doubtful about even the "species appearance" navboxes, unless the appearance is crucial to recurring storylines (the Daleks and the Master may qualify, not so sure about some others). --RL0919 (talk) 12:30, 9 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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation step free tube map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Citation step free south east rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded reference for use in British rail station articles. The reference itself is acceptable and ought to be substed wherever it currently appears, but we don't use the template namespace for things like this. Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with hardcoded reference templates. The first, minor, technical issue is that <ref> tags don't always work well with some template features - that is easy enough to work around if needed. The second, bigger issue is that it can make it difficult for other editors to edit the reference if they dispute it or wish to use a different one. I want to be clear that I myself have no problem with the content of your references - I think they are good ones. However, other editors are allowed to not like them, so in my experience we tend to disapprove of templates that make it difficult to do that. Gavia immer (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ref tags work fine with these templates. They do not prevent other references being used, in fact the opposite. They could have been hardcoded into {{Infobox London station}} but were not for exactly that reason. Can you point to any policy or guideline that supports your view? And can you explain why others exist without any problems. Recommend you withdraw these nominations as they seem to me without basis other than personal preference. MRSC (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't see a problem with this way of formatting a source. It doesn't seem to cause any major problems or breach policies. Replacing it on every page it appears on would be a lot of work for no obvious benifit. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like I said before to MRSC the South East Map needs to be more update and clearer to read, but the template should stay.Likelife (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using templates to transclude regular text into articles (without performing any other functions) is discouraged, but there is widely accepted precedent for using templates to simplify and standardize the citation of a particular source that is used repeatedly across many articles. --RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 9 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.
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 substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template uses a poor-quality image (white patches in the middle of the ‘transparent’ segment). This template is patronising and, I would imagine, it’s message has never been necessary. Finally, this template is used on only one page (so should be substituted there and deleted, if in use at all). ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:18, 4 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.
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) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The orphaned template, which is merely a link to the Google News RSS feed, is not being employed in any useful fashion, and for three years has not appeared on any page except for the inactive user's namespace. DMCer 10:10, 4 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.
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 and replace with {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}. Ruslik_Zero 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost all college basketball articles use {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}. There are currently only two transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 4 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.
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) 16:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swimsuit Issue template list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with nothing but redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 4 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.
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. –Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swimmingresult (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Swimmingresulttop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Swimmingresultrelay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Swimmmingresult (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:03, 4 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.
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spider-Man adversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spider-Man/adversaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spider-Man Supporting characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Spider-Man}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:51, 4 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.
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 all. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spongebob1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spongebob2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spongebob3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spongebob4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates. SpongeBob episodes do not appear to have individual articles, so this navigation template is not necessary. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 4 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.
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 there are potentially thousands western philosophers, this template will never be complete. If restricted to a subset of the w. philosophers, the inclusion criteria will be too vague. Ruslik_Zero 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western philosophers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep? - Orphaned, yes, but why can't it be added to the relevant articles? Seems a relevant enough subject. I'd be willing to do this myself, if that's the outcome. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and unnecessary. There are numerous philosophy navigation templates; many articles linked in this navbox already have several. This one is so broad that it is better handled by categories and list articles, which already exist. If it were used, there would be tremendous inclusion issues. Currently it includes obscure figures like Julien Offray de La Mettrie and Nicolas Malebranche, but not Quine, Popper, or Rawls. You might say that could be cured by editing, but the end result of that would be a gigantic template filled with figures related to one another by little more than the title "philosopher". This is what categories are for. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919. Navigation templates work well when dealing with groupings whose membership is well-defined and relatively small (e.g., Template:Presidents of Turkey). In such cases, navigation templates can present information that is complete and reflects an objectively-defined set of members. Navigation templates do not work well when dealing with groupings whose membership is poorly-defined or subjective (such as "influential Western philosophers") or very large (e.g., "Western philosophers"). In such cases, navigation templates either present a reasonable amount of information that is incomplete and reflects a subjectively-chosen set of members or present so much information (e.g., a few hundred or thousand names) that readers are no longer able to easily utilise the template for navigation. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add "v d e" and make collapsable or autocollapse. If you think it is too large, just remove links to minor philosophers and the relable as "Major western philosophers." Carlaude:Talk 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad in scope to be complete (or to want complete); too trite and controversial if it only lists "major" philosophers. Also (per RL0919) tries to do the work of categories & adds another template to many articles already burdened with a disorienting proliferation of them. Wareh (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as superceded by several other templates as per the above. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 13 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.
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wet Paint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, appears to be redundant to "in use" Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 4 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.
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 all. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wexp Experience (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wexp Honor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wexp Skill Point (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no backlinks, no talk and no edits since the day they were created in May 2008. Also, the level of game detail in these templates seems to go against WP:NOT. --RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 10 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.
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 4 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.
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) 04:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, which does not appear to be necessary. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 4 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.
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wide image IE7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, not sure if it is still of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 4 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.
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) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 4 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be an orphaned template for a project with one member. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:45, 4 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.
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, possible redundant to {{rescue}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no backlinks, no talk and no edits since it was created. The edit summary for its creation makes it sound like it was intended as a joke. --RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 10 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.
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 as unused and redundant. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiMatrix Top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiMatrix Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiMatrix End (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is basically redundant to a simple wikitable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 4 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.