Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13 edit

Template:West Midlands railway stations (disused) 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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Midlands railway stations (disused) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{West Midlands railway stations}} (Disused section). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most counties have separate navbox templates for "open" and "closed" stations. Where they are combined on a single navbox, it can get unwieldy. Compare, for example, {{Greater Manchester railway stations}} as it is now, with an older version before I moved all the closed stations to {{Closed stations Greater Manchester}}.

I note that {{West Midlands railway stations}} segregates categories by means of collapsible sections. Is there a method of having such a navbox in a page so that the relevant section is shown uncollapsed with the others all collapsed, without expecting the user to go for show/hide links? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wednesfield railway station. The Disused section opens automatically for me. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in answer to Redrose64's question, yes. See {{P&O ships}} for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the navigational purpose of the two templates is sufficiently different (people interested in closed railway stations are probably not interested in open ones and vice versa) that splitting these is useful, over and above the size argument. I would consider moving the word "disused" into the title bar and doing away with the label though, as single-label navboxes are weird-looking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. {{West Midlands railway stations}} is working. JIMp_talk·cont 06:56, 15 February 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.

Under-19 World Cup Navboxes 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) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:England Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Australia Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pakistan Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:India Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Zealand Squad 2010 Cricket Under-19 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Under-19 World Cup is a junior competition which does not confer notability upon those competing in it. As such it is not really notable enough to have navigational templates set up for it. Harrias ^talk 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly per nom. There is no guarantee at all that U19 cricketers will end up becoming notable. These types of templates are recipes for the future creation of articles that do not meet notability requirements and an unnecessary generator of red links. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary. Johnlp (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not necessary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:18, 17 February 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:Scibook 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) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing to do with science books specifically. Redundant to {{infobox book}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{Infobox book}} Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:19, 17 February 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:Sceptic organizations 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) 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sceptic organizations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Spelling variant of {{skeptic organizations}}. None of the skeptic organizations use the British spelling in their names anyway (not even Australian Skeptics, etc.). So there should be no articles mandating British English spelling (per MOS's regional variation permission). The spelling of the title of a navbox is slightly pedantic anyway. Per all that, this unused template isn't needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the highly unlikely event that a spelling variant is needed a switch can be added to the original template to accommodate it anyway; there is definitely no need to maintain a fork for that purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unlikely at all; there are many articles in this template's list that use Commonwealth spelling. However, these articles use {{sceptic organisations}} (with a "c" & an "s"), which should be kept, in keeping with the spelling used in the article ... not in the name. A name's a name. Australian Labor Party still uses Australian English even though the party's name doesn't. It's just that this spelling varient hasn't ever been used in any of these articles so far; "~ize" is an acceptable varient in Commonwealth spelling but it isn't common. Adding a switch is a better solution. And there already is a switch; {{skeptic organizations|c}} does the same job (this is the code of {{sceptic organizations}}). Delete it.JIMp_talk·cont 06:07, 15 February 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:Bernard Goldberg 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) 03:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bernard Goldberg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only two blue links. WP:NENAN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessary navbox. Redundant to listing at Bernard Goldberg#Books. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is just fine for this. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 20 February 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:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation 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) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{English Benedictine Congregation}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm not entirely sure that a larger template is a better idea; it seems to me that grouping the different aspects English Benedictines together means adding more links,, but of of less direct relevancy. It's done now, and I don't want to propose deleting the new template ... but just in case future editors take a different view, I suggest that the schools template be made into a redirect to {{English Benedictine Congregation}}, rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 13 February 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:Science of Hadith 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) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science of Hadith (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the links here go to one of the articles in {{hadith2}}, which is in use, unlike this unused template. Redundant and unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 13 February 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:Saudi Kings 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) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saudi Kings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant to {{SaudiKings}}, which is in use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the other one, with a switch to choose between sidebar and footer formats, so that editors can choose display presentation. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "redirect" part is fair enough. But I don't understand why a switch needs to be provided for different styles of the template. Surely consistency across articles is better, rather than delegating to "editor's choice" on a per-case basis? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Options for the sake of options is not a sensible development pattern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sidebars and footers are already substantially standardized, but I think it should be the choice of editors as to which to use, since the sidebar provides more emphasis, which can be appropriate in some articles. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Editors have already made that choice in this case, as the sidebar is orphaned. We needn't continue to maintain unused templates simply to satisfy some ideal of "choice". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:17, 14 February 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:Sati Chaura Ghat, Kanpur 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) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sati Chaura Ghat, Kanpur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Gallery of one image. Unused. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:37, 13 February 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:Saudi Arabia composition 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) 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saudi Arabia composition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not particularly insightful. Unused. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:37, 13 February 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:Backtomorrow 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) 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unused template, seems utterly redundant with other templates ({{under construction}}, etc.) and if it's really important to let people know you'll be back tomorrow, use the talk page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T3 to {{under construction}}. The comma-as-semicolon and Shatner's Comma are bonuses. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as redundant. JIMp_talk·cont 07:02, 15 February 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:ArchivedArticle 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. (Non-admin closure - if some of these old discussions aren't closed, TfD is going to begin to mount up hugely.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Unused template, seems utterly redundant with other templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, slight T2: The use of the word "archived" implies the keeping of the article in userspace purely for storage/backup purposes, going against WP:FAKEARTICLE. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by "archived" it means userfied, there is no point to this template. Articles being worked in someone's userspace are already implied to be under construction by a particular user. There seems to be a sort of hidden undercurrent of "I want to keep this revision in my userspace" too, as Train2104 pointed out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. There are no archives. JIMp_talk·cont 07:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "please do not edit this page without permission from the user" part of the template seems a bit owny. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:25, 17 February 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:Eating Establishments in Newport, Shropshire 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) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eating Establishments in Newport, Shropshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken navbox. Probably none of these eateries are notable for being in this town anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repaired the template, but it contains only two links and non of them can be found only in Newport, Shropshire. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:27, 17 February 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.