Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25 edit

Template:Constituencies in London Area 1918-1945 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) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Constituencies in London Area 1918-1945 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and unlikely to be used, since the contents are entirely commented out due to a dispute several years ago. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 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:Verkhovna Rada parliamentary scandals 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) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verkhovna Rada parliamentary scandals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has only a single article which exists and one redlink (for which subject isn't clear) so it is superfluous to what one would expect for a template on articles. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for now, unless the creator of this template will expand it soon it should be deleted. Let's hear what he has to say... Was this template meant to incorporate anything that happend in the Verkhovna Rada that could be seen as scandalous? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:25, 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:Zumpano 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) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only navigates to two articles (the editor has disguised the red-links by using redirects), and merely replicates existing links in the three articles it is used in. This Navbox musical artist serves no useful function. memphisto 12:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Short and superfluous for just three pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 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:Lackawanna Mainline - west of NJ Cut-Off 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) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lackawanna Mainline - west of NJ Cut-Off (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No articles on which to place it, it seems. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:56, 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:The Corre 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) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Corre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stable that doesn't have an article yet. Crisis.E X E 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nav tpl made in January for a page (nn band) that's been speedied twice and salted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 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:Good-new-page 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) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good-new-page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template implies that there is some kind of "approval" process that articles need to pass, and there really isn't one. If after this template is applied, someone else finds a problem or tries to get the page deleted, this may be confusing or disappointing. A simple note saying thanks for making the new article can accomplish the purpose of this template without misleading the editor. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Template is poorly worded and unnecessary. Will cause confusion and/or problems if widely adopted. —SW— ^spout 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are requirements that all new pages must meet. All current templates only critisize people for creating articles that don't meet the critera. This template just lets people who create articles that are good that they are being noticed and that their contributions are welcome. Oddbodz (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by a new user who joined in March 2011. It doesn't seem to have been proposed at the village pump. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll just repost here what I replied to the creator's original enquiry on my tp: ...The most important thing to understand here is that no major changes to policy or process are done without consensus. If you get enough interest at project level, it can be proposed at the village pump. if it gets enough support there, it will go to a central Request for Discussion. Creating an article that merely passes as fleetingly approved for immediate retention, is not a big deal. Just having created an article that does not get templated or deleted is not reason for congratulation or award. For one thing, as any seasoned new page patroller knows, around 80% of all new articles go to CSD, PROD, or AfD, a huge number get marked with maintenance and multiple issue tags, and a significant number get tagged and deleted later. The template might heighten the disappointment of editors who rejoice at the congratulations, only to be told later that their article is crap and heading for the recycle bin - or already in it. At a time when we are trying to keep authors, this is probably not the best way to go about it, especially when New Page Patrol is already in an appalling state and frightening people away due to the high number of inexperienced users who aren't sure how to use the 100s of templates they are supposed to be using already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 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:Problem-new-page 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) 01:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Problem-new-page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates such as {{uw-refimprove}}, etc, serve the purpose of this template already but are more specific. This new template is not necessary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Template is poorly worded and unnecessary. Will cause confusion and/or problems if widely adopted. —SW— ^spout 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by a new user who joined in March 2011. It doesn't seem to have been proposed at the village pump. Duplicates various problem templates. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll just repost here what I replied to the creator's original enquiry on my tp: ...The most important thing to understand here is that no major changes to policy or process are done without consensus. If you get enough interest at project level, it can be proposed at the village pump. if it gets enough support there, it will go to a central Request for Discussion. Creating an article that merely passes as fleetingly approved for immediate retention, is not a big deal. Just having created an article that does not get templated or deleted is not reason for congratulation or award. For one thing, as any seasoned new page patroller knows, around 80% of all new articles go to CSD, PROD, or AfD, a huge number get marked with maintenance and multiple issue tags, and a significant number get tagged and deleted later. The template might heighten the disappointment of editors who rejoice at the congratulations, only to be told later that their article is crap and heading for the recycle bin - or already in it. At a time when we are trying to keep authors, this is probably not the best way to go about it, especially when New Page Patrol is already in an appalling state and frightening people away due to the high number of inexperienced users who aren't sure how to use the 100s of templates they are supposed to be using already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 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.