Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17 edit

Template:Infobox CSI: NY season 1 episode 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 Keep for now pending any decisions involving notability of individual episode articles (see here). No objection to relisting. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CSI: NY season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; all episodes were redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put on hold til consensus reached on notability of episodes. Discussion of template should be put on hold until consensus reached on notability of episodes. See my note on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 17#Template:CSI season 1 episode list. Nom has also done this with the series House. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Template:Navbox House episodes. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just put notices on the article talk pages. Recommend relisting. --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 27 September 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:CSI season 1 episode 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 Keep for now pending any decisions involving notability of individual episode articles (see here). No objection to relisting. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSI season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used on any articles, since all of the episodes were redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put on hold til consensus reached about episodes' notability (or speedy keep). The reason most of the episodes in these lists don't link is because they were redirected by nom as non-notable (without evidence of consensus). There should at least be a discussion of whether or not the episodes are notable before redirecting them. Also, Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes has been nominated for speedy as an empty category, but the only reason it's empty is because it has been removed from the templates being discussed and the articles that were redirected. I think the discussion of these templates' deletion should be put on hold til consensus is reached on the episodes. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note (taken in part from my note on Category talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes): I'm not saying the articles that were previously in this category are notable; I haven't had the chance to look through them. What I'm saying is, it would be much better to reach a consensus on their notability before redirecting them and deleting their respective categories and templates. They may not, in fact, be notable, but it's better to let the community decide that rather than one editor decide. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just put notices on the article talk pages. Recommend relisting. --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 27 September 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 Marathon (Athletics) 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 Skier Dude (talk 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Marathon (Athletics) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created by Diogomauricio3 and was used in now deleted fake articles in his userspace, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Diogomauricio3's user pages, and has never been used in a useful fashion in the mainspace, and since it is orphaned it probably never will be. I don't edit in this area, but it appears to be redundant to other templates such as Template:Infobox Athleticrace. CT Cooper · talk 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the associated doc, as they don't seem to be useful anywhere. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not used in any article, even in articles on marathons (for example, Alexander the Great Marathon). Articles about marathons can use {{Infobox Athleticrace}}, like many already do. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:09, 20 September 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:Wikibroke 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, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not at all clear what the purpose of this template is. To antagonise editors who are on wikibreaks? To point out compromised accounts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have other tools to check whether our user page had been modified by someone else during our wikibreak. Besides, someone else can easily remove the template when they want to, rendering the function of the template useless. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is clear what the purpose of the template is. To notify users, once they return, that their account has been used while on supposed "wikibreak", possibly by someone else. The message does this immediately, while the user who may receive the message may or may not notice the edits immediately.

It's not possible to antagonize someone while on their wikibreak, since they are on wikibreak and thus have no idea, but one could attempt to antagonize someone when they come back from break.

As far as the message being able to be removed, that is acknowledged in the template and is true of any message left. And, if someone has figured out how to use the account of the person the message was written to, they can delete the message without creating a "You have new messages (last change)." blurb at the top of the page the next time that actual person actually logs in. Hyacinth (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this necessary, or appropriate? Surely if someone has broken a wikibreak that person will be aware of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a user on wikibreak cannot be contacted, how is it possible to determine whether or not their account has been compromised? If an account was compromised, I assume it would be blocked and tagged with {{Compromised account}}. I don't see why this template is necessary, and agree that it's purpose is unclear: it's very poorly written, and I have no idea what a "wikibroke" is. PC78 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is very confusing. Also, if someone were using the account of someone else on wikibreak, couldn't they just remove the notice? If the purpose is to reveal that an account has been compromised, tag it with {{compromised account}}, like PC78 said. The template's kind of redundant... --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for a template message for such a rare situation. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it's safe to assume that the person most often likely responsible for making contributions using an account whose rightful owner has said he or she is on a "wikibreak" is the rightful account owner him- or herself. Chris is right. If the purpose is to antagonize those users, the template should be deleted. If an account is actually compromised, it should be blocked using the appropriate request for AI, not handled with a talk page note. --Bsherr (talk) 00:25, 27 September 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:Csiguide episode 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) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Csiguide episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transclusions were on episode articles which were almost universally redirected, leaving this template abandoned. What's more, this doesn't appear to be an acceptable website to link to per WP:ELNO; it's an unattributed fansite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the template links to fansite. Wouldn't linking to the episode on IMDB be better? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:38, 20 September 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 CSI: Miami season 1 episode 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 Keep for now pending any decisions involving notability of individual episode articles (see here). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CSI: Miami season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the episode articles were redirected. These templates aren't used anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per TPH. JJ98 (Talk) 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put discussion on hold until consensus reached on notability of episode articles. Articles redirected (within last few days) by nom, without establishing consensus. See the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 17#Template:Infobox CSI: NY season 1 episode list, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 17#Template:CSI season 1 episode list, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Template:Navbox House episodes, which have had similar things done. The House articles that were redirected have already been un-redirected pending improvement and/or consensus to redirect/delete the articles. Consensus on the articles should be reached before turning them into redirects and removing the redirects from templates. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
close discussion Trying to deal with a much disputed issue this way is improper. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 24 September 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.