Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 27

< March 26	March 28 >

March 27 edit

Template:17th century in Angola 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) 02:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:17th century in Angola (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was only used for 4 articles, two of which I have merged into Colonial history of Angola, another which I have merged into Colonization of Angola‎, and the last which has been renamed Dutch occupation of Angola. This template is no longer needed, and has no mainspace pages that display it. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:21, 27 March 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:Embarq 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) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template only contains two links, both to pages that are already linked. WP:NENAN. oknazevad (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—WP:NENAN, seems more like content than navigation. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:24, 31 March 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:Serbian White Eagles FC squad 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) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbian White Eagles FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serbian White Eagles play in a league not recognized by WP as fully pro, meaning players listed in the template are presumbed to fail WP:NFOOTBALL (WP notability). In addition, the template is not kept up to date.

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:North York Astros squad 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) 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North York Astros squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

North York Astros play in a league not recognized by WP as fully pro, meaning players listed in the template are presumbed to fail WP:NFOOTBALL (WP notability). In addition, the template is not kept up to date. Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 27 March 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:Doctor Who robots 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) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who robots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Suggest deleting this template. Three of the five articles (including one I added myself) are in the much more extensive Template:Doctor Who and the other two are easily accessible through that template or any number of links. Breaking down Doctor Who articles by creature type or species is going to lead to a lot of templates consisting of only a few articles each, probably stacked one on top of the other. Brig Anderson (talk) 11:45, 27 March 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 motorcycle racer 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) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox motorcycle racer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan redundant of {{{Infobox motorcycle rider}} Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 28 March 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:User2a 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) 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User2a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The shape of the bullets seems to be the only difference between this template and {{User2}}: User2's are round and User2a's are square. It is not worth having a separate template for this barely-noticeable difference. The template has 183 transclusions, of which 95%+ are from transclusions of {{User information templates}}; the handful of other transclusions can be replaced by {{User2}}. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{User2}} and remove the {{User information templates}} transclusions. Note also that this template was nominated for deletion on June 9, 2009 with a default to keep. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks, I forgot to mention the previous TFD: it was kept in 2009 because the edit count URLs were different, which is no longer the case. But, why redirect a longer title to a shorter one? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering there are only 11 userpage transclusions of {{User2a}}, you may be right. I'll change to delete. It means an extra 11 edits will have to be made to fix these transclusions assuming the template is deleted, but I suppose it's really no big effort. If there were 100+ transclusions, I'd probably still opt to redirect, though. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems reasonable. So that there's no extra work for anyone else, I'd be glad to fix the transclusions—some of which appear to be due to substitutions of {{User information templates}}—if there is consensus to delete the template. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:27, 29 March 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:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link 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) 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think we need this template. Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that it is placed on the talk page of virtually every U.S. presidential election article, it would seem to have some usefulness. It conveniently links to the page that explains the style and layout for U.S. election articles.--JayJasper (talk) 03:37, 27 March 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:Unsigned6 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) 02:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template duplicates {{Unsigned}}, with two differences: it uses a larger font, which makes it difficult to distinguish the text of the signature notice from the text of the discussion, and it contains a call to "Please sign your posts!". Personally, I think that signature templates should be informational (for editors reading a discussion), not educational (for editors who forget to sign posts); the latter goal should be pursued through discussion on a user's talk page ({{Uw-sign}}), and not directly on discussion pages. In the event that there is consensus to use signature templates to educate, then {{Unsigned9}} does a much better job: it indicates how to sign one's posts.

Most of the template's transclusions are because of {{User information templates}}, and the remaining transclusions can be substed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. 203.217.85.87 (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary, and at best, redundant.--JayJasper (talk) 13:10, 27 March 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:Uns-ip-van 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) 00:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uns-ip-van (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can think of no situation where this template would be necessary or appropriate, and it appears to have never been used (see search results). Noting in a signature template that an IP address "has been used for vandalism" automatically casts a negative light on comments made by the IP's users. This poses a problem, particularly in the case of shared IPs, where it is possible that the person adding the comment is not the one who carried out the vandalism. If that happens to be the case, then the notice is unnecessary hostile to the commenting user.

In general, this template goes beyond what a signature template should do: indicate who added a particular unsigned comment. If a comment is vandalism, then it should be removed; if it is not, then there is no need to potentially poison the well and bite a new user; and if we're not sure, then it is better to write a comment with diffs than to use a generic notice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., serves no useful purpose and potentially counter-productive.--JayJasper (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. It would be quite unfortunate for a shared IP to be used for vandalism by one user and then constructively by another user later on who merely forgot to type ~~~~ on a talk page. There's no reason to potentially taint innocent users as vandals. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:12, 29 March 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.