Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16 edit

Template:Add code 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. JPG-GR (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Add code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, purpose not clear. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or document. If user can document and explain use, then keep, otherwise delete or userfy. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems this template is identical to {{protein}}. It doesn't link to any articles so it is safe to delete.Curb Chain (talk) 08:17, 21 July 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:Japan Squad 2009 U-17 World Cup 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. Salix (talk): 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Squad 2009 U-17 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Its a youth tournament not a senior tournament GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what did you wish to discuss about this template? Why have you brought it it Templates for Discussion? Lord Vetinari 07:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason to delete. Transaction Go (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: consensus is to only have competition squad navboxes for senior national teams. Big Dom 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this discussion implies that this discussion starts leaning towards inclusion of youth squads. While youth squads are not inherently notable, squad templates are useful as a navigational aid that helps build the web, and as long as said templates contain a useful amount of links - in this case nine, and likely to grow as more players 'come of age' and play professionally or for the senior side - this template could be kept, without prejudice to deletion of similar templates that do not fulfil a navigational purpose. Redlinks should maybe be black-linked for those not inherently notable. If there is an actual reason to delete, such as WP:NOTUNLIMITEDDISCSPACE, nominator should state it, the rationale provided seems more like a clarification than a rationale. --ClubOranje^T 10:14, 5 July 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) 21:18, 16 July 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:AnonymousWelcome 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 modify. The consensus is clear that the template needed some kind of modification, whether that be a small tweaking or a complete deletion. As Rivertorch's modifications has gotten only (albeit not extensive) positive remarks, the proposed modifications have been implemented. No prejudice to future discussions regarding the template, of course. JPG-GR (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this should be deleted or redirected to a genuine welcome for IP editors such asTemplate:Welcome-anon, as this isn't really a welcome just a lecture making a hardsell to get IPs to create accounts. We have plenty of welcome templates for IP editors that do actually welcome them, and I think they all include at least some encouragement to create an account. But this particular template is written as if IP editing was somehow deprecated - and it is less welcoming even than Template:Welcome-anon-vandal which is written for IPs that we have had vandalism from. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy (if the creator wants it) - I don't see how it adds to {{Welcome-anon}}, and it appears rather to forceful to the recipient IPs to create new accounts. Also, {{Welcome-anon}} gives a lot more helpful information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include additional welcoming language and links to pages helpful to new users. Rather than simply discarding something that seems to be useful, let's work on improving it. I disagree that it's a "hard sell" or that it deprecates IP editing. It lists the benefits of registration concisely, neutrally, and in simple, easy-to-understand language. No other welcome template does that, as far as I know, and that is a shame. Many IP editors spend months, even years, making constructive edits without realizing that they can become fully engaged, trusted members of the community simply by taking one little step that has no downside. I think that's unfortunate, and I think this template serves to counter it. I have used this template hundreds of times over at least a couple of years, have received zero complaints in response, and have been aware of instances where it apparently had the desired effect: the IP user realized the benefits of registration and felt sufficiently welcomed, so they registered. As I told this Tfd's nominee, I wish someone had graced my IP's talk page with this template when I was an unregistered newbie; if they had, I'd likely have registered and become a more active editor a couple of years before I did. Another advantage of emphasizing the benefits of registration in such a template is that, over time, it potentially will reach many editors who happen to share an IP. The constructive, clueful ones will be encouraged to register (while not necessary, an undeniably good thing) and the vandals and POV pushers will also be encouraged to register (no disadvantage to the Project). On the other hand, a template that emphasizes the "welcome" to the exclusion of the registration message will wind up being read by everyone sharing the IP, including uers who have no intention of doing anything here that will be welcomed. (I've taken the liberty of notifying the template's creator—long inactive—of this discussion.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the template is wrong. It's been hashed out at XfD that people like me (IP editors) have a say. (just not for Admin elections) Further WP:IP!=VANDAL says an IP editor almost became an administrator anyways. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the template is wrong, it should be fixed. AfD nominations can only be made by registered editors, and that point can (and should) be clarified in the template's wording. Admins aren't elected, but the template makes no allusion to the RfA process anyway. As for the essay WP:IP!=VANDAL and its redlinked claim, I can't quite figure what it means to "almost" become an admin. Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination restriction is not quite true either. IP editors show up at WT:AfD to request completion of "Step 2". (such as at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 60) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, no, that IP did not even gain 1 support. I can email you the content if you would like. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the nominations indicated in that particular archive succeeded, only that you can nominate an article for deletion without an account. Considering that there are over 10 nominations in that archive, and several of the pages have been deleted, I don't see what you're saying that not one person supported deletion, as several articles appear to have been deleted from those requests. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could've been more specific. I was referring to the IP who "almost became an administrator", according to WP:IP!=VANDAL. That IP still didn't gain a single support in its RfA. I fully accept the fact that IPs can initiate and !vote on AFDs like everyone else. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a near duplication of Template:Welcome-anon. The list of welcome templates has become so long already (and growing) that hardly anyone, except those who created one, is going to use them all, or scroll through the list to find an appropriate one. Near duplicates are superfluous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If it is a near duplication, why delete instead of redirect? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an option, adding some more friendly language. Sometimes it's appropriate to simply list the benefits of registering. I've used this approach in person on occasion, and at least occasionally it can be very convincing. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 3 July 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) 21:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect pre Reaper Eternal and Σ. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note I have drafted updated, revised template wording that addresses many of the specific concerns stated above. It is in userspace here and I'd be grateful for feedback. Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: A redudant template not in wide use. A\/\₉3r-(0la 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant in what way? Exactly how widely used is it, and how widely used must a template be to be useful? Rivertorch (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 "deletes", two "keeps", two "redirects", one "expand" and one "userfy", so the result of the discussion is delete. A\/\₉3r-(0la 19:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily: voting is not a substitute for discussion. I realise that you are pretty new around here, so I should also point out that per WP:NACD you are debarred from closing it as "delete", because deletion requires administrator privileges, which you do not have. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, Redrose64. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to look at this, which I first linked above. If anyone else likes it, I'll change my position on this one. (Actually, even if this one gets closed as a 'keep', I'm inclined to edit the hell out it. So it's really just procedural: does this one get fixed or replaced? The end result, I hope, will be the same.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect the name to {{Welcome-anon}}, which is more attractive and doesn't harangue the IP user to register. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to {{benefits of registering}} or similar. The language is rather forceful for use as a normal welcome, but does have a plus side of detailing the benefits of registering. There have been occasion where an anon editor does need a very big poke towards registering, this is more likely when they have significant number of edits so a "welcome" message is not really appropriate. I'd scratch the first welcome line and just use it to encourage registering. --Salix (talk): 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon. Agree with nom's rationale. -- œ ^™ 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with Rivertorch's modifications. I find the differences between this template and {{welcome-anon}} to be material and Rivertorch's version is friendlier and better worded. — Bility (talk) 21:46, 5 August 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 England and Wales civil parish 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 after making necessary modifications to other template(s) in order to utilize them instead. JPG-GR (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template difficult to add maps to. The general UK place or Infobox settlement should cater easily for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the problem with the other templates is that they do not have the the UK place for example does not have any concept of type which you really need to show if it is a settlement or a parish. Also why use large complex templates which are totally over the top, keep it simple use smaller focused template. On maps we do not use the normal pin maps but specific maps showing the area so adding a map is just like a normal image. Keith D (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've long recommended we add a blue strip like infobox settlement which gives that option. Thats not a valid reason not to delete. Neither is "over complicated templates" like infobox UK place or infobox settlement which you can take out any parameters you don't want anyway and simplify to as minimum as possible. The problem is that such templates make editing awkward for the vast majority who are not familiar with this template and how to operate it. Why should I have to learn how to operate a whole new template when I could stick to using one used in most wikipedia articles? What is so special about english parishes they need a coimpletely separate infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument for having a specific template for civil parishes as they are a distinct unit of government. Ideally it would be sub-classed to a more fully-featured template rather than implemented from scratch, but that's an implementation detail. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Infobox settlement is very flexible and I'm in favor of getting rid of all regional/national varieties for a unified look. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; or, if it must go, redirect to {{Infobox UK place}}, and amend the latter as necessary to include those items which it doesn't have but are in {{Infobox England and Wales civil parish}}. The problem with "universal" templates such as {{Infobox settlement}} is their very universality: there are too many general-purpose parameters, and for certain characteristics of a given town/village/parish, no immediately obvious parameters to put them in. As a result, puzzled editors either leave them out, or put them into unsuitable parameters. When different editors cannot agree on what goes where, we end up with pages looking different, the very opposite of a "unified look". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 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) 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. If there are additional parameters needed, incorporate them into the generic template. I sympathize with the concern that Infobox settlement can be a bit challenging for those unfamiliar with it, but it is very widely used, and if all the existing transclusions of this template are replaced, there will be plenty of good examples to work from. --RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 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:8TeamBracket-Men'sVolleyball-SerieA1 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:8TeamBracket-Men'sVolleyball-SerieA1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely redundant to {{8TeamBracket-Best of Five (Except Final) Playoffs}}. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? It was made to match the appearance of the template used for this article. But it's not important. Xerxes53 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 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 Nine 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - template links the show article, an episode list and a bunch of non-notable and now redirected character articles. It is not needed for this material and serves no useful function. Calvin Grant (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because most articles included now redirect to the main show article. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*All* of the articles now redirect to the main article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pointless navbox as all articles redirect to main article. Laboulaye (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the character articles point to the show's article because the nominator redirected them there. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - Eureka Lott 17:34, 23 July 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:Prey series 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prey series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only into three articles. Not a good navbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For so few articles, they can just be included as links in each other's articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnecessary for only three variations of an video game that is not exactly well-known. Laboulaye (talk) 09:20, 17 July 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.