Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2 edit

Template:Noir 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) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small template, the character list and episode list are already listed in the main article in their sections. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 2 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:4RoundBracket-Byesnoseeds 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4RoundBracket-Byesnoseeds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:4RoundBracket-Byes Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not redundant as this template has the facility not to use seeds, the number in its own box before the team name. Please amend Template:4RoundBracket-Byes before deleting and subbing. --Bob (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template should have it, but it is not implemented in the code. Willing to withdraw if someone does it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:08, 2 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:Jessie J 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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jessie J (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Again, very few links that are not redirects (I have removed the ones that were per WP:NAVBOX). This artist does not have sufficient links (albums, songs, etc.) to warrant her own navigational template. Yves (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For now, I will vote this "Delete"; but for the future, I will vote this "Keep". She'll release more "stuffs" in the future, so please temporary-hold on. :) Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The link has correctly been restored in the template. I don't know what is suppose to be the minimum links on a template, this template has seven. Features articles in featured topic such as Tokyo Mew Mew have less, and a Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria is 1.(c) All articles in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Suncreator. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the template can only grow, it currently has enough articals on. Plus she is set to release a new single this month, which gives her 3 singles and 1 album. Enough to keep the template open. --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Very few links, which could easily be accessed from the main article. However, I kinda agree with SaturdayMight, and it's early days yet so no doubt more links will be necessary to add to the template. londonsista Prod 23:49, 7 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.

South Africa legislative floor-crossing tables 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. One author who requested deletion. Magioladitis (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South African floor crossing, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastern Cape floor crossing, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gauteng floor crossing, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:KwaZulu-Natal floor crossing, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Western Cape floor crossing, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:National Council of Provinces seat determination, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:South African floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastern Cape floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gauteng floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:KwaZulu-Natal floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Limpopo floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mpumalanga floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Northern Cape floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Western Cape floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:National Council of Provinces seat determination, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:South African floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastern Cape floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gauteng floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:KwaZulu-Natal floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Limpopo floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Northern Cape floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Western Cape floor crossing, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:National Council of Provinces seat determination, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. I created these {{election table}}s for use on the articles 2003 South African floor-crossing window period, 2005 South African floor-crossing window period and 2007 South African floor-crossing window period. But I have realised that they are not likely to be used on any other article, so I've substed them in to the respective articles. I'd actually be happy for them to be speedy deleted as G7 (author request) but I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate. - htonl (talk) 14:40, 2 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:Palestine foreign relations 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. Merge result was in effect for almost two months, so anything that should have been merged had plenty of time. Will copy history to article talk for attribution purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine foreign relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, created last year, was originally intended for use in the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. It was never implemented there, and has not been used on any article since its creation. A previous discussion resulted in a delete consensus, which was later changed to merge after one of the commenting editors contacted the closing administrator. However, the target article has been significantly reworked since then, and the structure of and all the information in the template is now outdated and completely redundant. There is no possible likelihood it will ever be used in an article. Nightw 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has ever been reached to delete it; On the contrary: this discussion shows that User:Nightw (14:15, 13 December) has supported the deletion, while both User:Eliko (14:32, 13 December) and User:Alinor (09:17, 9 December) - who is the author of this template, have rejected the deletion, unless the template is fully merged with the other article, so the final decision was "merge" (rather than "delete"): the template still contains some relevant information not existent in the other article, just as the other article contains some relevant information not existent in the template. Eliko (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words of the closing administrator (JPG-GR (talk · contribs)) were: "The result of the discussion was delete. The contents of the template have already been merged into the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Accordingly, no future need for this template is apparent."
You then contacted the admin on his/her talk page, requesting undeletion. The admin then changed the result to merge on the condition that you were to "complete any necessary merging and then alert an admin so they may delete the template". That was two months ago, and you've failed to do what was requested. The template isn't being used and never will be used, so either merge the content or step aside. Nightw 05:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't remove TfD nominations. Once a proper nomination process has been started, it is up to consensus to decide what action to take. Nightw 05:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPG-GR has been notified of this discussion. Nightw 05:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. User:Nightw is trying to quote from what was crossed off by the closing asdminisrator (JPG-GR), and is trying to call what was crossed off by the closing asdminisrator: “the words of the closing administrator”.
  2. As opposed to User:Nightw's claim, the words of the closing administrator (JPG-GR) were: “The result of the discussion was merge” (rather than “delete”).
  3. As opposed to User:Nightw's claim, the contents of the template have not been merged yet, because somebody has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent this merger, and has also been trying to delete the whole template before it's merged.
  4. As opposed to User:Nightw's claim, the closing adminisrator gave no “condition” to the final decision to merge; On the contrary: the condition was given to any future deletion – rather than to the very merger : The administrator has unconditionally requested to fulfill the final decision - i.e. to merge the article - before any admin can (conditionally) delete it, and not vice versa ! Further, two users (User:Alinor and User:Eliko) have been trying to fulfill this final decision - and to merge the article, however, unfortunately, somebody has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent this merger, and has also been trying to delete the whole template before the final decision is fulfilled.
  5. As opposed to what User:Nightw is trying to claim, the nomination process discussed - is not “proper” at all, because this nomination is intended to by-pass a final decision that has already been reached by consensus of three users (User:Alinor, User:Eliko and User:JPG-GR) - against one.
  • For User:JPG-GR's final decision to be fufilled, I simply propose to undo the revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - and which unilaterally undid the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article.

Eliko (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to closer The TfD tag was missing from the template for 5 days since it's removal by User:Eliko on 3 February. Although I doubt many people would have come across this discussion via the tag. Dpmuk (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd removed the tag because it'd been trying to by-pass a resoluion that is still relevant (for more details, see on my talk page). Eliko (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sub page of Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority(see below). I'm not sure deletion is a possibility anymore due to attribution requirements. This whole situation appears to be a mess. This template appears to have been created from the article without attribution and from what I can see any attempts to merge changes to the template back into the article have, I think, likewise been done by simple copy and paste without attribution. As such I'd suggest the easiest answer maybe to move the template and then leave a notice on the talk page of the article explaining the situation. The decision as to what should and should not be included from it can then be dealt with by the normal editorial process on the article's talk page. Dpmuk 13:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about a redirect to the article? Is it possible to redirect between namespaces? Nightw 13:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the article to the template. Eliko (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cross name space redirects are normally frowned upon - redirecting from an article to a template is a definite no-no and I'm not sure the other way round would serve any purpose as readers don't search templates. Dpmuk (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing that needs keeping is the history, once moved, could it be redirected to the article's main talk page? I realise this does not serve much of a purpose, but neither does the content... Nightw 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that would be my suggestion - page is move, immediately redirected (or balnked) and then people can continue to merge from the history if they so wish. I should point out that I would be !voting delete if it wasn't for the attribution requirements and that my option is to all intents and purposed a delete. I would even go so far as suggesting fullly protecting the page after redirection (or possibly blanking) as it would never have any need to be edited. Dpmuk (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the article to sub page of Template talk:Palestine foreign relations. Note that the template is much more updated than the article, which is based on outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, and ignores more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010. Eliko (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous suggestion, and shows a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. WP:TMP is quite clear on the purpose of the template namespace: to "duplicate the same content across more than one page". It shouldn't have even been created in the first place; it was a questionable use of the namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". Nightw 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to delete the template before fulfilling the resolution to merge the template into the article, is even more ridiculous. Eliko (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I don't understand why we can't delete this. It certainly should not exist as Night w points out above. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This discussion explains why it can't be deleted: Note that the result of that discussion was "merge", so any deletion can be made only after the merge - and not vice versa; Notice also that the relevant more updated sources in the template haven't been merged yet into the article, which still contains outdated sources. Additionally, User:Dpmuk has already explained (see above) why it can't be deleted, on other grounds. Eliko (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was meant to be deleted after a merge. If that hasn't taken place by now, too bad. You should have done it before. And believe me, I can delete it. Whether I or someone else does or doesn't delete it is the question. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion explains why it can't be deleted: Note that the result of that discussion was "merge", so any deletion can be made only after the merge - and not vice versa; Notice also that the relevant more updated sources in the template haven't been merged yet into the article, which still contains outdated sources. Additionally, User:Dpmuk has already explained (see above) why it can't be deleted, on other grounds. Eliko (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not insult my brain, I am literate; and stop being disruptive. There's no point repeating the same rant over and over again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion: Userfy to Eliko's userspace, since it is not transcluded anywhere, and absolutely does not belong in templatespace. The content can be merged from there, and it can be deleted when the merge is complete. Would this solution be agreeable to everybody? - htonl (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to userspace is fine, if Eliko wants that. But I won't allow any attempts to "merge" anything, as the arrangement of content is now completely different, and there was never a consensus for Eliko's post-move edits to begin with. See WP:ANI#User:Eliko at WP:TFD for the background. Nightw 12:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to get your permission, because the resolution of the original discussion was "merge", whereas this resolution has never been canceled, whereas the original discussion was about merging more updated documents into the article - which still contains the outdated documents. Your arguement that the new article is now different, is misleading: Look at this diff (between the article and template), and see that it's a very easy work. Eliko (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Eliko's userspace, since he's the main person working on it. This doesn't belong in template-space. It would be acceptable as a temporary userspace draft, as long as it's not kept there indefinitely. Decisions on whether to merge any content from it to the main article are up to the editors there. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely agree with that. If Eliko wants to propose merging the content into the article, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the article's talk page. Nightw 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can't do that myself, userfying is a reasonable suggestion, which lets the original resolution be fulfilled, so I accept it. Eliko (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alinor has been notified of this discussion. Nightw 12:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would appear that under CC-BY-SA 3.0 we don't actually need to keep the history and an appropiate null edit will suffice (see WP:AN/I#Why hasn't/can't Template:Palestine foreign relations be deleted? for more on this). As such I see no reason to keep this around as this isn't what we use templates for and it's effectively an alternate version. 2 months is a long enough time to merge and it would appear attempts have already been made so they're be in the articles history anyway so even if those edits have been reverted we don't need to keep this. I don't oppose userfication as long as it's with blanking and protection so the userfied page is only used to merge from and we don't end up with two alternate copies. Dpmuk (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If only because this isn't what template space is for; honestly, I haven't seen a kludge this bad since my freshman programming class. As far as attribution goes, what can be done here is what was done when "BOOMERANG" was relocated from its deemed-unacceptable (but IMO much, much funnier) original name. See Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot#Attribution. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how about the more updated data in the template, that were intended (by the resolution of this original discussion) to be merged (before any deletion) into the article which still contains outdated information? For more details about those more updated data - to which that resolution refers, see the original discussion. Eliko (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The template was made because there was duplication of content between Foreign relations of PNA and State of Palestine articles. Afterwards the content was removed from the SoP article. Currently the content is present only in one article (that's why the template isn't used), but in the future it may be needed for synchronization with another article. Alinor (talk) 14:28, 9 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:Red vs. Blue characters 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) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red vs. Blue characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links redirect to same article. Useless navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no need for a navbox here. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 9 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:Mpumalanga floor crossing, 2005 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. See above discussion: #South_Africa_legislative_floor-crossing_tables. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mpumalanga floor crossing, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Probably not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for notifying me of this. I created the article for which this template was intended, but, realising that this template is probably only going to be used on that one article, I've subst'ed it along with its siblings. Therefore, as the author, I say go ahead and delete it, with the reservation that if it turns out to be needed in some other article as well, it could be recreated. I'll put up another nomination myself to deal with the other similar templates. - htonl (talk) 13:10, 2 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:Ifpreview 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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. I can't see how this would be used. The relatively new "editnotice" functionality supersedes the described usage of this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This would be useful in sandboxes, for various programmatic functions. Document into template sandboxing documentation. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...please explain? Which "various programmatic functions" are those that you have in mind? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:18, 26 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, Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep useful for debugging, to test if a page is in preview, and for testing templates (in sandboxes and when developing new templates). I don't see any advantage in deleting this, and it will make testing new templates harder. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 20:34, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_2&oldid=1140109513"