Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1 edit


Many navigational templates with very few/no links 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Per Resolute below, and the fact that as people will edit these templates and thus make them useful this big list is going to become unwieldy. Will split still-unused templates into more focused groups and relist. - Mobius Clock 09:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above templates are navboxes or navigational sidebars which contain either no active links at all, or so few as to render having a navbox pointless. These are all I could get from the report on unused templates, I'm sure there will be more when/if I can get access to the full list! Would someone with AWB access be able to go through and tag all the templates? It'd take me forever; thanks in advance. (Done with my own assisted-editing script. - Mobius Clock 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)) - Mobius Clock 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may be right about most of these, but I'd specifically like to see {{Bangli Regency}} kept. I know the editor who created it from id:wp and it's all done in good faith and, ultimately, this template will fill with blue links as the project expands coverage of an area I know personally, Bangli Regency. And see w:id:Templat:Kabupaten Bangli, the corresponding template on id:wp. I wrote that template and most of the many others like it on id:wp; the links are all blue and, eventually, en:wp will have coverage of these very lovely places, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, that one has been struck from the list. - Mobius Clock 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve added a bunch of links to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1950}} and {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1955}}. A lot of similar templates exist (Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates), so I hope that these two can be spared? –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. That's part of the reason I made this mass-nomination, at the very least it brings the templates to the attention of people who can make use of them. - Mobius Clock 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all Too many templates of too many varying types to make for a useful TfD. If you want to do this, take the time to do them individually, or in related groups. Resolute 04:12, 3 May 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:Anjehism 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) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Anjehism' doesn't seem to exist, most links point to pages other than those in the link text; no transclusions. - Mobius Clock 18:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a POV fork of Template:Thatcherism. This misleading (Renie Anjeh → Tony Blair) template has no useful purpose. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2009-10 Philadelphia 76ers depth chart 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) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009-10 Philadelphia 76ers depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blanked as being 'horrible', not edited since 2009. Simply an unlinked list before blanking. I looked for an applicable CSD, but couldn't find anything, please let me know if I missed one. - Mobius Clock 18:32, 1 May 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:Buffalo NY Shopping Centers 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. Tim Song (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buffalo NY Shopping Centers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Buffalo, New York}}; all the malls are already listed on that template or shouldn't be (i.e., non-notable strip malls). Only used on one article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:16, 1 May 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:"Democratic Labor Party of Lithuania"/meta/color 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 clearly a typo, it shouldn't have the quotes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:"Democratic Labor Party of Lithuania"/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with a name longer than the text it creates? Pretty much the definition of pointless. Apparently supposed to be a colour template for election results or suchlike, but another template already exists for this party (seemingly with useful content), so definitely no need for this. No transclusions or links. - Mobius Clock 15:49, 1 May 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:Routeboxnh 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. Tim Song (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, last modified on 8 August 2006 at 04:47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmanWilm (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 May 2010

  • Fix and re-evaluate. First try to fix the template. (I think there is a more fixed version of the template at User:Underorbit/Sandbox.) If you fix the template and you really don't think it's needed, then fine, delete it.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphaned and redundant to other roads related templates. If the user wants it, you can move it to the user's userspace per WP:USERFY. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, if it is redundant to something[clarification needed], then delete. I don't need it, and I don't speak template, so I can't really fix it myself.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 01:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - orphaned and redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 05:17, 9 May 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:Will&Grace1 - Template:Will&Grace8 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 all. Tim Song (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Will&Grace1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Will&Grace8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates, linking only to each other, and several templates w/ red-links pages: red links/056 red links/060, red links/2006jan25-1, red links/2006jan25-2 & red links/2006jan25-3 EmanWilm (talk) 03:55, 1 May 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:BLP IMDB-only refimprove and Template:BLP IMDB refimprove 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 nomination withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP IMDB refimprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These seem an effort to dodge the view that imdb is not a reliable source. Absent a consensus for these to exist, they would be best deleted. Jack Merridew 03:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not going to delete and I'm withdrawing the nomination. My concern is with the terminology and will discuss that. I see that a lot of the intent here is better communication about issues I agree with. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. The template "BLP IMDB-only refimprove" was developed by me and others in discussion at wt:URBLP. It is designed as a complement to existing {{BLP refimprove}}, to enable one to identify that usage of IMDB is itself an issue among the sources used, in a BLP article. It includes the entire message given in BLP refimprove, plus it adds mention of there being issue with use of IMDB. There are now more than 500 articles tagged with it or related template "BLP IMDB refimprove". This TFD seems like a mistake, a misunderstanding. --doncram (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep plz. Current methods have not been entirely successful at getting across the message that IMDB is not a reliable source. Whilst there may be an argument to change the wording of this template, it does enable us to shift the communication from us saying "this has no source" and the author and readers understanding "someone has slapped a nasty template on this article without noticing it does indeed have a source". To us saying "this is sourced from IMDB, which is a problem because IMDB contains unverified content", and thereby perhaps prompting the author or readers of the article to add a better source. It also enables us to identify and talk to the editors who keep using IMDB this way. ϢereSpielChequers 04:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Keep. First, I created the template to re-enforce the idea that IMDB was an unreliable source, so I'm not sure why you are saying I'm trying to dodge that. Second, there is unfortunately no consensus (see User:LiberalFascist/IMDb) that IMDB is unreliable (IMO IMDB is unreliable for anything but screen credits), so this is an attempt to make a {{BLP sources}} type tag stick, even if everything in the article was attributed to IMDB.  — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I view articles sporting imdb as worse than unsourced. To some, not ya'll above (?), imdb is just peachy. I believe unsourced articles are *bad* and that such templates offer wiggle-room on the binary question of sourced/unsourced. I've only glanced at wt:URBLP (will read it tomorrow). I can see a value in categorizing pages using imdb-only, so maybe adding a mechanism to the established templates would be worth considering. nb: the use of 'refimprove' in the names of these templates implies that articles sporting them are, in fact, referenced, just not as well as they should be; contrast this with templates using the term 'unsourced' and 'unreferenced', which is more apt. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If a source is indicated, then the article is not unsourced. My understanding is that there is no consensus on IMDB either way, but that it is generally accepted for screen credits, which are not based on user submissions. Maurreen (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not sure how the nom feels this is an effort to dodge the fact that IMDb is not a reliable source. I feel it is just the opposite. With all the discussions on unsourced BLPs, editors were changing tags from 'unsourced' just because there was an IMDb link, but (IMO) info may have still needed further verification. (Sorry, I know some supported this.) We all know that IMDb is often unreliable, and this makes is very clear. Hasn't the characterization of IMDb-only articles as "unsourced" already been discussed ad nauseum? Keep, keep keep. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Merge It may be possible to merge both into {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} with an "only=yes" parameter to show the only version of the text. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is an experiment that has a potentially valuable outcome. The project this is a part of should decide when it is no longer required. And for the purpose of experiment do not merge yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that these should be kept, I fail to see how merging the two substantially similar templates will affect any experiment; care to clarify? - Mobius Clock 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to merging them together, but there are already a substantial number (hundreds) tagged, so we probably would need a bot to go through and change one to the other. Seems like a waste to go through all that effort, especially if we later want to put them in separate categories, or something similar.  — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No objection to a bot changing one into an option of another, but to make it easier for the taggers it is easier to have two templates than a template with options. ϢereSpielChequers 07:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Options about programming, to combine the programming that delivers the two IMDB-related tags or to allow other sources to be identified, should happen at Template talk:BLP refimprove, I suggest. IMDB is not the only source which some/many regard as unreliable, that is worth tracking as a general issue for BLP articles. --doncram (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The basic point of having two tags is that on some articles, the IMDB source might be more or less extra. If the article has other and better sources, losing it would likely not be critical. But if IMDB is the only source, any problems with IMDB are more of a problem for the article. And if the IMDB source is removed, the article changes from being sourced (even if weakly) to being unsourced. Maurreen (talk) 16:32, 2 May 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:LRT Line colour 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) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LRT Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Orphaned and unneeded, people can just look up the appropriate colours, without the need for a template. - Mobius Clock 19:06, 2 May 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:London Underground navbox 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) 14:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London Underground navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Massive orphaned navigation box Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already well covered by the other navboxes in Category:London Underground navigational boxes -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:13, 1 May 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:Overland line link 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. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Overland line link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Overland line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:29, 1 May 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:Pakistan Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy 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. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. I believe this type of navigation box is deprecated. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 1 May 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:Pakistan International Airlines Destinations 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. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan International Airlines Destinations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, not sure if the information should be merged somewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 1 May 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:Pages-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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pages-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pages-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pages-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pages-4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates, not sure of their exact purpose. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NameSize
1Mary9.05
2Joe2.4
3Mark5.06
Total kB:16.512
  • Embarrassingly enough, I made the template and I can't quite figure out how it works. I think they were a predecessor to {{pages}} (shown to the right). No opposition to delete however. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 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:Aliveri industrial railway 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 now that it is in use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aliveri industrial railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template is now in use in the subsection about Aliveri railway. SV1XV (talk) 04:02, 1 May 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:Adelaide Metro color 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. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adelaide Metro color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which appears to have been replaced by something else. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 1 May 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_May_1&oldid=1138694463"