Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18 edit

Template:Football League Cup 2006-07 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) 06:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football League Cup 2006-07 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only two articles, but looks like more due to heavy use of section links. If more links were created to add the missing information (i.e. team names), this would result in navbox overload on team article pages if similar navboxes were created, and the intended information belongs in articles in any case. Jameboy (talk) 14:09, 9 June 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) 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contains no useful information, nor does it appear to be used on any articles. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:15, 21 June 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:Football League Cup 2005-06 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) 06:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football League Cup 2005-06 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only two articles, but looks like more due to heavy use of section links. If more links were created to add the missing information (i.e. team names), this would result in navbox overload on team article pages if similar navboxes were created, and the intended information belongs in articles in any case. Jameboy (talk) 14:09, 9 June 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) 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contains no useful information, nor does it appear to be used on any articles. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:15, 21 June 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:Boston Celtics 2009–10 NBA Eastern Conference Champions 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) 06:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston Celtics 2009–10 NBA Eastern Conference Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mainly per notability issue. None of the Eastern/Western champions have templates like this. —Chris!c/t 22:21, 18 June 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.

Category header ... 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 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category header socialists by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header socialism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservatives by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservative parties by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cathead Conservatism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header anarchism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header political movements in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header libertarians by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header libertarianism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header liberal parties by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header anarchist organizations by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Category header Islamism in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. It is an exhortation for editors in a content category. It is also redundant since {{catdiffuse}} can be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - The entire "political movements" structure is based on them, and this would undo the whole thing. Much like WP:ships (Category:Cathead templates) You cannot manually change (and maintain) each one, that is literally over a hundred subcats. See on just how many categories each one is used. It places in 3 (currently) standard named parent categories, by country, and links to related pages/categories/lists. When the naming scheme/structure is updated or new lists/pages/parentcats are created, all of them would have to be modified manually as well. Much of the WP category system is a mess, but these make clean organization and maintenance of the standard scheme possible. - Skullers (talk) 08:28, 27 June 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:Wanted 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) 06:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - most of the contents of this template have been deleted and the remaining four articles are all interlinked, not requiring a nav template. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and what is now remaining is insufficient to warrant a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 18 June 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:SortKey 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, with no objection to taking the redirect to WP:RFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template seems to be exact duplicate of {{Sort}}, so I think this one should be redirected there or deleted completely. Svick (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rather than redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep SortKey is an internationally used template speeding up interwiki translations (and btw ... {{sort}} does not actually sort, it just changes the sorting position!) axpdeHello! 07:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can it be verified that this does exactly the same thing as {{sort}}? If so a speedy delete per T3 would be fine, leaving a redirect if Axpde's argument regarding interwiki translation is valid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only difference is that sort adds class="sortkey":
* {{sort|Brothers Karamazov|[[The Brothers Karamazov]]}}
* {{SortKey|Brothers Karamazov|[[The Brothers Karamazov]]}}
Outputs:
<li><span style="display:none" class="sortkey">Brothers Karamazov </span><span class="sorttext"><a href="/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov" title="The Brothers Karamazov">The Brothers Karamazov</a></span></li>

<li><span style="display:none">Brothers Karamazov</span> <a href="/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov" title="The Brothers Karamazov">The Brothers Karamazov</a></li>
So, they are functionally equivalent. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and replace; if they are functionally equivalent; replace current uses with the format for "Sort", and then redirect the name, since it's a likely name to think of for a sort-key template. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 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:Timeline Mozilla Bugzilla 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) 19:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline Mozilla Bugzilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is only used in one article and its contents can be changed and included in that article if required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The creation of this template is for easy maintaining of its content, by using a template the contents are not mixed (timeline/article) and can be maintained into several languages (easy&fast). Thanks. --Rbuj (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The contents can be easily maintained on the article page. The template is not required to include it on several different languages. Besides, there's nothing in the timeline that must be translated. It consists of dates, version numbers, and a product name that is not different across languages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This template contains "Updated on +date" string which is different on each language.--Rbuj (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This is not required to be in a template. The same can be achieved by including it directly in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not relevant for the discussion on deletion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I understand what this dispute from Bugzilla is all about now. As Walter Gorlitz said this template is being used on one article. He was right, but also, by the fact this template on the article has not been covered by a source, I may remove the template from the article altogether, which I suspect is the reason why this dispute is still going on right now. If the source is covered, I'll change my vote. Minimac (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my vote to Keep. The template added to the article has a reliable reference which supports the article. Minimac (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand when you says "If the source is covered". I have added a reference to data source on template.--Rbuj (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not whether the data is reliable since the reliable data can be added directly to the article, it's whether the template is (or even can) be used in any other article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold keep for lack of alternatives and ease of maintenance — 512 LOCs is a lot. This particular use of templates may not be what naturally comes to mind, but since subpages in the main namespace are disabled, and there no "Data:" or corresponding namespace a "bold keep" seems reasonable. jonkerz♠ 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not even used in a single article let alone multiple. Each national article has its own copy. There is no need for this template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of <timeline> makes this entirely inaccessible to screen readers, and the use of collapsible content is discouraged per WP:COLLAPSE. I see no reason why a basic table or flat list couldn't be included in the parent article, and this template could be completely eliminated. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:14, 8 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:Scarborough Athletic F.C. 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) 21:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scarborough Athletic F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Navigation" template that links to only one article. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it only has one link! It originally had a few other links, but I guess it can quietly disappear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadogerk (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 June 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 Municipality Slovenia 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) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Municipality Slovenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox municipality (settlement) used in some of the articles already. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If it weren't still in use, it would be eligible under CSD T3. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 26 June 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 Algerian municipality 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) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Algerian municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox municipality (settlement). Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If it weren't still in use, it would be eligible under CSD T3. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 26 June 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 Algerian 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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Algerian District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox district (settlement). Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:18, 18 June 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 Algerian Province 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) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Algerian Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox province (settlement). Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If it weren't still in use, it would be eligible under CSD T3. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 26 June 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 Vietnam 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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Vietnam district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used infobox, redundant to Template:Infobox district (settlement). Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:14, 18 June 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 Indonesian political party 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 due to added utility pointed out by Plastikspork. No prejudice toward an expansion of Template:Infobox political party to include said fields. JPG-GR (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indonesian political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox political party. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andy. Redundant template. Adrian (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a frontend to {{Infobox political party}}. Looking at the code, there is some extra stuff that gets added at election time (ballot number, candidate) and it is reasonable to have the labels for those fields isolated to one location. In comparison, a template like Template:Infobox Nepalese political party is not really as necessary, since most all the of the parameters pass straight through, with just the "country" field (and wings names) being set. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Plastikspork and because of the seats parameter – so that the name of People's Representative Council doesn't have to be repeated on each article that currently uses this template. Svick (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why was the template's author never notified? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:09, 29 June 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 Indonesian regency 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) 04:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indonesian regency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox regency (settlement). Contains exactly the same layout, no need for seperate template. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:12, 18 June 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 Indonesian province 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) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indonesian province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox province (settlement). Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:08, 18 June 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:Triclassauthority 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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in article space after being subst-ed into Tripartite classification of authority. Per policy, templates are not to contain normal article content. Cybercobra (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also think I created that table years ago, then it was templated without consulting me. If it was widely used - we could have kept it. As it isn't, it is a pointless template, now that Cobra has integrated it back into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:03, 18 June 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_June_18&oldid=1140244084"