Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 14 July 16 >

July 15 edit

Template:Infobox Students Union (GS) 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) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Students Union (GS) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly orphaned and redundant to {{Infobox Students Union}}. If a General Secretary fields is needed, why not just add that to the more generic template? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY KEEP - Why break the articles that this is used in, if the template was not used then would happily see it deleted, but while it is in use then it should remain. Suggest that the nominator works on the adjustments to the "generic template" and thus remove the need for this template before re-nominating (will change my !vote if that happens). Codf1977 (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—redundant template with one change to the other template. In response to Codf1977, this is a discussion, and any results of this discussion will be implemented after the discussion closes. If the consensus is to delete the template and replace it with a slightly modified alternate template, that alteration will be made first, the articles transitioned second and the template deleted third. Imzadi 1979 → 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if that is the case then would not have a issue. But would it not have been better for the nominator to make those changes as per WP:BOLD then it could have been deleted via WP:CSD#T2 ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make such changes to another student organization template (see Canadian discussion below) and was quickly reverted. However, since you have requested it here, I have switched the two transclusions to the standard template, so this one is now (currently) orphaned. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Codf1977 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 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 American football active 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) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox American football active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly orphaned and redundant to {{Infobox NFLactive}} and {{Infobox Gridiron football person}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:55, 15 July 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 BAFLactive 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) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox NFLactive}} and {{Infobox Gridiron football person}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 08:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The templates shown are designed for the North American leagues, not the British one, so unless the latter can be adapted for the British AFL, then it should stay, at least for the time being. Or am I missing something? NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ignore what I just said! Having seen the changes this alternative works fine. Maybe if the BAFL gets big enough it'll need its own template, but this is definitely workable until then! xD NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 20:50, 16 July 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:IPhone dablink 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) 01:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPhone dablink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete Now only used on 1 article (iPhone (original)), where it should be subst-ed. It used to be used on the other version-specific iPhone articles (iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4); however, none of those are confusable with the Linksys iPhone by virtue of including their version number, and they're not confusable with the iPhone in general (unless you think people indiscriminately append numbers to their search queries) besides which the overarching iPhone article is linked to in their ledes anyway. iPhone (original) is excepted as the meaning of its title is not as apparent. Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. I think {{otheruses}} covers this well enough already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Delete if only one use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 19 July 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:Non-free use rationale - Rangeview Library District 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 T2/T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale - Rangeview Library District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears to be a failed attempt to add a non-free use rationale to an image. I've fixed its one transclusion, and it is no longer of any use now. Reach Out to the Truth 21:26, 15 July 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:Road banner 1 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) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road banner 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{jct}} is much more useful than this hardly used template. WOSlinker (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment did you inform the roads wikiproject? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{jct}} handles it all. --Rschen7754 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete—not in use and redundant to {{jct}}. There's no need to inform a project (WP:HWY) when it was a country-specific template used by another project (WP:USRD). Imzadi 1979 → 23:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lose it (template author)  — master sonT - C 03:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{jct}} does it better. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on Master son's comment above, speedy delete per G7. – TMF 01:38, 18 July 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:Source Cite 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) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source Cite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used to document articles used as sources in the media. Redundant to {{press}}. Not formatted as a talk page message box and includes an image of a mountain for some reason. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:47, 15 July 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:Sources-warn 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) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sources-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Uw-unsourced1}}, {{Uw-unsourced2}} and {{Uw-unsourced3}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment these templates didn't exist when I created it. How about a redirect? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind looks like it was never taken out of prototype. I deleted it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 15 July 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:IIHF World Championship winners 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) 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IIHF World Championship winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox cruft listing the 10 ice hockey teams that have won a IIHF championship since its inception. ccwaters (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Templates are not meant to replace article content and this not a good use of a navbox. Navigationally, it is redundant to {{Ice Hockey World Championships}}, and presents the information in a much more confusing manner. Resolute 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :Why does Fifa get one but IIHF doesn't?? ([1]).
How is it redundant to {{Ice Hockey World Championships}} when it displays 2 different things? Why does FIFA world cup, and UEFA euro championship and so many other similar compeitions have both a timeline and a winners infobox?? I was simply modeling it after the FIFA equivalent. How about first you tell them to delete this: [2], and then you have grounds, but until then you are simply not considering the facts. Slaja (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look here:

{{CONCACAF Gold Cup winners}} {{CONCACAF Gold Cup}}

Exact same thing.
I work tirelessly on IIHF arictles and this is your response? I feel incredibly hurt that when I make an Infobox which is widely used in the same circumstances i'm told its: "confusing" (how????), and "Navigationally"(not a word) it is redundant to {{Ice Hockey World Championships}}" (huh? redundant? where on the ICWH infobox does it display winners???). Slaja (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff exists is not a strong argument: both templates could be (and probably are) inappropriate. Navbox templates are aids to help people move between articles of interest: they are not simply canvasses to add arbitrary information to. And while it's a shame that you've put effort into it, that's not really a reason to keep the template, is it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably delete both of those as well. Navboxes are supposed to be for high value links to other pages as a navigational aid. Per WP:EMBED navboxes should only have links to articles that would already be included on completed version of the page they are being included on. These templates don't really accomplish that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing personal to you, but it it is redundant to the other template. The goal of a Navbox is to link closely related articles. The pre-existing template already links all championships held in chronological order. Your template is redundant to that in that it links the exact same thing, but does so in an order that reduces the reader's ability to find a specific championship. The historical aspect of which nations have won which championships belongs in an article, not a template. Templates should not be used for article content. Resolute 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that, then you are going to have to spend a lot of time arguing this position, because there are literally ten's (at least 11 which I have found) of identical infobox's. So once again if you convince the football people (and other) then I will agree to delete it.
(Following your argument Resolute, wouldn't the "squad" and "roster" navbox's found in football, baseball, and other also be deleted? What about the "finalists" box's ({{2010 FIFA World Cup finalists}})? Slaja (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been told, above, that other stuff exists is not a strong argument. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:29, 25 July 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 Coptic Pope styles 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) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Coptic Pope styles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox manner of address}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 15 July 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 Canadian Student Association 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian Student Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is largely redundant to {{Infobox student group}} and {{Infobox Students Union}}. There is no need for a specific template just for Canadian groups. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completely Agree with Plastikspork. Abductive (reasoning) 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - Regional differences for the templates necessitate separate templates. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the big differences: In the US many student unions are run like the US government, whereas in Canada they're run as a corporation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is that relevant to the template? Abductive (reasoning) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It affects the various officers, which could be difference in Canada vs other countries. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I see no regional differences that necessitate a separate template. Imzadi 1979 → 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is a feature missing, then discuss it for addition. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before i vote Question...If deleted would all the pages with the Template simply be blanked or would some sort of redirect take place so all 40+ articles using this have to be fixed manually ?? Moxy (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will replace it with one of the two aforementioned templates, mostly using "students union" since that appears to be the majority of the transclusions. No information will be lost. I actually boldly started this process before this discussion was initiated, but Me-123567-Me objected, which is why I opened a discussion here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- As per Plastikspork note to change this in the affected articles.Moxy (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:27, 24 July 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:Sup-sources 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) 20:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sup-sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sup-sources-Enc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sup-sources-OCRT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sup-sources-FR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The first is an external link template used for in-text citations in one article. The other three are unused in any article and use {{Sup-sources}} as a meta-template. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly updated the two uses in the one article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:49, 18 July 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:Imagemap 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) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since its last nomination, this has been replaced on all existing articlespace transclusions and is presently used only on less than a handful of userpages to get a floating image (which can easily be accomplished without resorting to this template. The normal image syntax supports everything that this does, and having one way to do things leads to more maintainable pages and less confusion for inexperienced editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's time to say goodbye and thanks to this template. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 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:Tappi Tíkarrass 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 with no prejudice against recreation if/when more articles are created. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tappi Tíkarrass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one link with all the remaining red. Hardly useful. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely useless as the only existing article is linked within the main article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep—redlinks in a template aren't necessarily a bad thing, assuming the other musicians are notable enough to have an article at some point. However, if those articles are never likely to be created, then the template should be deleted as unuseful. Imzadi 1979 → 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navboxes are only intended as navigational aids, not as skeletons for future work. If they're full of redlinks then they're not helping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:37, 16 July 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:Jonas L.A. 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) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jonas L.A. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Small template with a link to the main article and two more, which are linked within the main article. Not everything needs a navbox. LoЯd ۞pεth 03:19, 15 July 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_July_15&oldid=1138694279"