Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24 edit

Template:Retsam nav 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retsam nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete user's personal single use template should not occupy templatespace. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (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:ProjectNav 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete copyright violation. This seems to have been lifted from WikiEducator. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2011 (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:River Song chronology 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) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Song chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Taking the unusual step of nominating a template I created for deletion. It was a nice idea, but I don't think it's going to work. Taking the latest episode ("The Impossible Astronaut"), River suggested that she will appear in a more-or less linear backwards way from her timeline, making this pretty much redundant. And these new episodes, although placed on the template by another user, are unclear whether they take place in River's timeline. I was wrong to assume we'd be able to place River in her personal timeline every time she appeared. U-Mos (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the time being anyway. It does Have a little bit of WP:OR involved at the moment. Perhaps when, or if, her storyline is brought to an end there will be a source (or more than one) that will allow you to recreate it with more accuracy. Thank you U-Mos for bringing this up. I hope that you are able to restore it down the road. The minute I heard those lines last night I was reminded of the way that Merlin is presented in T.H. White's The Once and Future King. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't Doctor Who (in his future) identified as Merlin in a Seventh Doctor episode? Now it's River who's acting like Merlin? Coincidence? I say Delete and talk about the chronology in the River Song article.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the Seventh Doctor being called Merlin. It was in the story entitled Battlefield. Good job on the memory front. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 25 April 2011 (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 5linx 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 speedy delete. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 5linx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently spam Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 24 April 2011 (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:Welsh National League Division One teamlist 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) 17:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welsh National League Division One teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox containing links to non-notable football club articles. The only bluelinks in the article are currently in the process of being deleted. – PeeJay 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary navbox. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've challenged proposed deletions on two of the three given that they appeared a division higher the year previous and that division is widely populated with links. matt91486 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 3 blue links out of a possible 13 is still not enough for a template IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2011 (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:User zionist 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zionist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I understood that POV userboxes were consigned to userspace by community agreement. I'm nominating this for deletion, but without objection to it being userfied (if someone wants it) and the redirect deleted. Scott Mac 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep and move it to userpage space. (i'm in favor of giving my userpage for that matter if it helps.) --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.
Moving it back here would seem to be a good idea. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy for it to be moved to your userspace. However, the transpositions should be re-pointed there and the cross namespace redirect deleted. This would be in line with what's happened to other such boxes.--Scott Mac 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per the above. In the future, however, deletion discussions involving userboxes, regardless of namespace, are placed at Miscellany for deletion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? This is templates for deletion, isn't it? Is this some kind of counter-intuitive rule someone has developed?--Scott Mac 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a bit confusing and counterintuitive, but listing userboxes at MfD instead of here is standard Wikipedia practice. For a list of what types of items should be listed at the seven different discussion pages, see Wikipedia:Deletion discussions#List of deletion discussions. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it isn't my practice. It looks like a silly rule, best ignored. I don't usually nominate things, but when I did I use common sense and intuition, I don't go looking for WP:CREEP rules, and I'm not about to start.--Scott Mac 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Userboxes are listed at MFD because they can be in multiple namespaces - some template, some wikipedia, with the vast majority in the userspace. Since userspace pages go to MFD, other userboxes in other namespaces go as well. Indeed, it says that right at the top of this page, and it's been that way since 2006. Not a new CREEP policy, in other words. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is still CREEP, and the type of nitpicking, counter-intuitive instruction that makes Wikipedia inaccessible to new users. If the existence of such an instruction would never occur even to an old-hand like me, what chance has anyone, other than the clique that hang out on XFD stuff got. No, it is an instruction best ignored.--Scott Mac 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per the template's author, above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:38, 26 April 2011 (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:Nocrap 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. Deleted by author. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

BITEY and unnecessary. We've got proper warning templates. Sure sometimes a sharp message is understandable, but it hardly needs a template. Scott Mac 15:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord. It's been five years since I wrote that. Really unnecessary, and in retrospect not the best idea; I've deleted it. DS (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (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:West Papua (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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{West Papua}}. {{West Papua}} is at a better name, so it should be kept. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (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:Thanthi group 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thanthi group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only three working links this navigation template serves very little purpose which can't be easily served by inline wikilinks and see also sections. Muhandes (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear muhandes, I am in process of adding more pages related to this. In a week or so I would do it. also i had renamed the page by substituting caps G in Group--Mahizhini1977 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. for now, letting the editor populate it, while keeping watch. --Muhandes (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (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:Multidel 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be largely deprecated in favor of {{Old AfD multi}}. I don't see this template serving any useful purposes that couldn't otherwise be served by the aforementioned template. At less than 500 transclusions it's not commonly used anymore, and it wouldn't be especially laborious to switch the rest to {{oldafdmulti}} if we needed to. elektrikSHOOS 03:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep oldafdmulti doesn't support all deletion processes. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which deletion processes doesn't it support? elektrikSHOOS 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, anything that wasn't AfD. Only AfD links with "page", there's no option to select a deletion process for each entry. If it was changed to support all deletion processes equally, then it should be renamed oldxfdmulti. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably check again. It supports most any other discussion via parameters which allow you to specify custom links and/or captions for non-AFD processes (and DRV if necessary). You're right, the template title may be a bit misleading, but that's a separate discussion. elektrikSHOOS 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any benefit to deletion. It's still in use, and 500 transclusions does seem laborious, especially when it's unnecessary. -- œ™ 01:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. (I'm clearly to lazy to explain, aren't I!) --The copyeditor's corner 18:40, 5 May 2011 (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/2011_April_24&oldid=1138694734"