Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6 edit

Template:Otheruses2 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant.100110100 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Otheruses can be tweaked to make this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – has been transcluded hundreds of times. Bwrs (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Make that nearly 3,000 times. These "Otheruses" templates seem to get more and more suspect the higher you go. {{Otheruses3}} is being discussed below, 4 redirects to {{About}}, 7 and 9 were deleted here, 5 and 6 seem to be copies of {{About}} (correct me if I'm wrong) and 8 is unused. Does anyone know the differences between these and {{About}}? Ruodyssey (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 8 is definitely distinct from the others, and should be included into the current documentation system. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redundant with what? Nominator does not provide an explaination. High usage indicates this is a useful template. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that its effect can be reproduced by a little more typing is not valid to me: This templates saves time. There are many templates in Wikipedia which do that and their effect can be reproduced by a little more typing but they are kept because they save time. (E.g. {{DATE}}) Now, the issue of {{otheruses3}}, nominated below, is another thing entirely; but I believe our friend 100110100 is a bit carried away in this case. Fleet Command (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used shorthand that does no harm. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 8 March 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:Notes 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) 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little used notice template; should be replaced with {{notice}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't this be replaced by a div section with an outline box? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can get almost the same appearance by using {{notice|image=blank.svg|This is a note}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace transclusions with {{Notice}} in the format suggested by Gadget850. No need for a little-used template that is redundant to a more widely used template with better options. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 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:Pop singer Neighbours actors 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) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pop singer Neighbours actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pop singer Home and Away actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pop singer EastEnders actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can't see a reason for grouping actors who appeared in a particular soap opera and then went on to have a career in music. anemoneprojectors talk 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary intersection of properties which neither defines nor is likely to be encyclopedically useful. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navigation templates should not be based on very tenuous connections. This type of connection seems particularly undesirable, since actors who appear on soaps may have all sorts of different career paths after. We would not want a proliferation of navboxes for "EastEnders actors who became movie actors", "General Hospital actors who later worked on Broadway", etc. --RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 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:Fred Figglehorn 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 as a navigation template without enough distinct links. RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fred Figglehorn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links, unuseful template. Karppinen (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I sincerely doubt that Mr. Figglehorn is noteable enough to merit a template in the first place. ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the Viral Videos links redirect to the main article, leaving the navbox with one viable link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete All links except that of YouTube return to one single article, either directly or through redirect. Kill it instantly! Fleet Command (talk) 11:05, 9 March 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:Imdfb name 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) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdfb name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another varient of the template below. Again, site is not a valid external link per WP:EL, nor is it a noteworthy site. Just some random wiki about firearms being randomly added by its creator to various film, television, and firearm articles (all of which additions were since removed). As templates should only exist for valid ELs that have wide use, this, like the other, should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a valuble resource with hundreds of articles and many pictures, which many gun articles don't have. And just because I've only put it on a few articles as yet doesn't mean I just "threw them on". —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to link to a commercial site. Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELMAYBE because it is not a reliable source nor is it from knowledgeable sources. Also per WP:ELNO because it is an open wiki which I don't think has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". In addition, the template links to pedantic details. Film articles are better off with writing about weapons in proper context and referencing the information with reliable sources. Erik (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <del> per nom. Jack Merridew 19:55, 6 March 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:Imdfb 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) 00:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template for creating links to an website that does not meet WP:EL nor WP:RS, so it has no place in any article. Site itself is completely unnotable. Just another random wiki. It was tossed on a few film articles by its creator, but those uses have been since reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As its creator, I would expect you to say keep. "Valuable resource" has no meaning. The site is unnotable and is an open wiki. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, it appears to link to a commercial site. Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELMAYBE because it is not a reliable source nor is it from knowledgeable sources. Also per WP:ELNO because it is an open wiki which I don't think has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". In addition, the template links to pedantic details. Film articles are better off with writing about weapons in proper context and referencing the information with reliable sources. Erik (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <del> per nom. Jack Merridew 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No transclusions. No well-known source. Fleet Command (talk) 04:49, 8 March 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:Otheruses3 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 to {{Otheruses}}. Avoiding the work of replacing transclusions is not a compelling argument, but the long history of this template means that many editors may use it without realizing it is deprecated/deleted. RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated.100110100 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "deprecated"? It still seems widely used. We'll need some more background and explanation to discuss this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Visit the template page and you'll discover. Fleet Command (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Isuggest redirecting then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Otheruses}} . More than one hundred transclusions are in place. Deletion is not the best of options. Fleet Command (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can use a bot. And isn't that why there's a holding tank?100110100 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right; no major objections. I thought perhaps deletion would create an unnecessary backlog. Fleet Command (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using a bot to bypass the redirect would be wasteful, contrary to WP:R2D. –xenotalk 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per above as redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a formerly highly used template, some editors may expect this to exist. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as per above. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but do not delete. If we delete it, we will need a bot go through 2028 pages solely for the purpose of making edits that could be avoided if we redirected instead. — The Earwig (talk) 03:00, 9 March 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:Mickygooduser 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. Will userfy if requested. RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it exists it should be in user space, but better is for it not to exist at all. We already have plenty of barnstars etc, without individual users making up their own equivalents. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 8 March 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:Mickycheck 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) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Personal template that belongs in userspace. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete If it exists at all it should be in user space, but I don't think it should exist even there. The whole tone of the template is uncivil, and its purpose is essentially to serve as a threat. Also the wording "Your recent edits have been classed as.." is designed to give the impression that this is some sort of official classification, not a judgement by an individual editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 8 March 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:Usergamer 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. This is arguably a userbox (despite the non-standard format), and thus should have been discussed at WP:MFD. However, an unused box in template space is not likely to have a different fate based on venue, so I'm going ahead with deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused & unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A single user's template, not used anywhere and not needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 8 March 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:Contractpage 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) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:36, 6 March 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:Expandpage 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) 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Well, that's kind of neat. Ruodyssey (talk) 14:20, 9 March 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:Busyuser 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) 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused & redundant to {{Busy}}, which has much more options and looks much better. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not transcluded anywhere. Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 6 March 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:1912 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) 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1912 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing that requires a template. The Evil IP address (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G2. 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete simple text does not need a template, and this is just super redundant as it's four characters longer than just typing the string in without it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 8 March 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:Resident Evil characters 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. Prior consensus is not required to make changes, but any subsequent consensus that is formed is relevant, and in this case the current consensus favors a single combined template over separate ones. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Completely replaced with Template:Resident Evil series. Fleet Command (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only made redundant by someone whose opinion dissented from having this content split out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant with a consensus. In addition, why should we have three navigational templates for a group of interconnected topics when one is enough? Three templates only bewilders visitor. Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and redundant. Resident Evil does not need three templates, and the series one is more encompassing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <del> as duplicative. Jack Merridew 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neelix (talk) 17:16, 8 March 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:Resident Evil films 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. Prior consensus is not required to make changes, but any subsequent consensus that is formed is relevant, and in this case the current consensus favors a single combined template over separate ones. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template that is now completely replaced with Template:Resident Evil series. This template was the result of an effort to split the Template:Resident Evil series into two, without a prior consensus but it did not properly cover all film articles. I have replaced all instances of it with Template:Resident Evil series. Fleet Command (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only made redundant by someone whose opinion dissented from having this content split out. And does it matter that this noncontroversial action had no consensus? Not every action on Wikipedia has to have a poll attached to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant with a consensus. In addition, why should we have three navigational templates for a group of interconnected topics when one is enough? Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and redundant. Resident Evil does not need three templates, and the series one is more encompassing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <del> as duplicative. Jack Merridew 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neelix (talk) 17:16, 8 March 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_March_6&oldid=1146550350"