Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13 edit

Template:Northwest Airlines Flight 253 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 and in the future, be sure to notify the author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does this really serve a navigational purpose that is worth the reader distraction? It hangs as a side-bar in a trivial number of articles, in a place where every single article it links to is already visible within the same browser window, because they are all either linked from the visible main body text, or are visible as {Main} hatnotes. I could maybe understand if it were at the bottom of articles in a horizontal format, but it isn't. I think all this template achieves is needless distraction and visual clutter, with little benefit.MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. But -- what is really disruptive is the way it's nomination has left the bomber's page looking. Can someone fix that pronto? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Useful for easy navigation, though not an overly big fan of the format either. If kept, change it to a navbox. —fetch ·comms 20:11, 15 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:CVGIDRIVEtopic 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) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Banners for an old "improvement drive" run by WikiProject Video Games. The improvement drive seems to have ended in 2006. Not to be confused with the project's ongoing "Collaboration of the Week", which has its own banner that is not nominated. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 13 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:Rockbox firmware 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) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rockbox firmware (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is essentially an advert for an alternative OS for various portable devices, designed to be transcluded onto articles to create a whole new section for that purpose. I can't think of any way in which this could be modified to resolve the handful of problems this creates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template for transcluding regular article text, which is contrary to guidelines, and no justification that I can think of for deviating from the guideline in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 21 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:2007 TEA campus rating 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) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 TEA campus rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007_TEA_campus_rating:AA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007_TEA_campus_rating:EX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007_TEA_campus_rating:RE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to {{TEA district rating}}, which was recently deleted. Despite the format, this is not actually a navbox. It is a single piece of information, which can be more appropriately conveyed in regular text or as a single line in an infobox. RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 13 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:Calendar today 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) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calendar today (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that links to a series of calendar pages that have not been updated since 2008. Only use is on a the page of WikiProject that appears to be inactive. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 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:CommonsCat 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per exactly the same reasoning as my other two nominations today: If you don't like the formatting of a template, improve it, but don't create templates that only lead to inconsistencies and confusion. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind merging these three requests into one TfD? FWIW I agree with the reasoning; we don't fork templates for minor quibbles with the wording. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to {{Commonscat}} per nom. Changes are too small for a fork, and the name is confusing as well. jonkerz ♠ 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect this was originally a redirect to {{Commonscat}} so should be again. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Commons category}}. - theFace 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Commons category}}. —innotata 16:29, 20 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:Orlando Fantasy roster 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) 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orlando Fantasy roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary navbox for as yet nonexistent Lingerie Football League team; WP:CRYSTAL. GlassCobra 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this team existed, I can't see how it would be used on any more than one article anyway. Reso lute 16:46, 13 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:Commonsimages cat 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonsimages cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See below, per the same reasons listed at #Template:Commonsimages. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the regular commonscat template. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Commons category}}. Offers too little advantage to warrant existence. - theFace 16:21, 16 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:Commonsimages 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This template is not used 170.000+ times, it's solely transcluding another template's doc. And this is also where it starts: The template duplicates the existing, widely used {{Commons}} and {{Commons category}}, because the creators don't like the wording. However, in such a case, the wording of these templates should be changed and not new ones be created that confuse and lead to inconsistencies. Thus, either delink and delete or redirect to the more widely used templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: irregardless of how many times its been used, its design and wording is useful and more immediately recognizable than other templates. HarryZilber (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I like it" is not a speedy keep criterion. "Substantial duplication of an existing template" is, however, a speedy deletion criterion. This should never have been forked, isn't being used, and won't be missed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless of those sentiments on this template, the Commonsimages template is being used, and others, besides myself will likely miss it, or they would not have used it at all. Its logo design use of a camera and the text reference to 'pictures' makes its intent instantly known to even rank novice users of Wikipedia, while the Commons template logo, which resembles some type of reactor vessel ready to erupt, and its use of the word 'media', is not what many would likely consider to be user friendly. In that vein I consider the Commons template to be both substantially inferior and different than Commonsimages. Note also that while 'pictures' refers to exactly that, 'media' can refer to sound, animation or other files besides pictures, which is often what users are most interested in viewing. Why do we need to lump them all together? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the regular commons template. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Commons}}. Offers too little advantage to warrant existence. - theFace 16:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Commons}} per discussion. Many uses of this template direct to pages with more than just photos. —innotata 21:25, 19 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:Population timeline of the United Arab Emirates 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 objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population timeline of the United Arab Emirates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template which is basically redundant to {{Historical populations}}. Since it was only being used once, I replaced it with the historical populations template in the parent United Arab Emirates article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 13 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:French Navy active ship list 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) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:French Navy active ship list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An entire article was cut&paste moved into a template, which was then transcluded back to the original page location. Not at all how templates are supposed to be used, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this post (on your user talk, no less), the ostensible purpose was to "protect it from vandalism". I would agree that this isn't a good approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:27, 13 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.