Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6 edit

Template:Gonzaga College High School 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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gonzaga College High School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete – A navbox for a high school is overkill (WP:NENAN). It also doesn't improve accessibility to the reader, and all of its links' information can essentially be found on the high school article itself. Superfluous. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:09, 6 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:Codename: Kids Next Door 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) 00:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Codename: Kids Next Door (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template, links only into four articles. Most of the characters, lists or episodes got redirected, merged or deleted due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 22:59, 6 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 Masters of Russian Animation 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) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Masters of Russian Animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the fields are the same as {{Infobox film}}. The main missing option from Infobox film is animated by. Would it be worth adding that to Infobox film and then deleting this infobox? WOSlinker (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I am the author of this template. It is needed for my animations I am going to do. This is a very important template for all this animations in the compilation "Masters of Russian Animation". Also it differs from the {{Infobox film}} template; the colors will change after switching from "DVD1" through "DVD4". No way to delete this template.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:03, 29 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, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Infobox film, then delete. Template:Masters of Russian Animation already identifies inclusion in the anthology. During replacement, it should be ensured that each page has that navigation template. --Bsherr (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reader value to colour-coding the DVD, and no editor value to maintaining two largely overlapping templates. {{infobox film}} should suffice here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I don't really understand you both. There are some parameters missing in {{Infobox film}}; the infobox is only for motion pictures, documentaries, telefilms, series, or whatever but never for animations. For example, please give me the parameter "Animated by", please? This is one of the most important thing that all animation infoboxes should have (but unfortunately there are no "infobox animation"). The color changing is very important to know from what volume this animation is actually is. If this so, why you don't delete, let's say {{Infobox Simpsons episode}}; there are some useless parameters, for example "couch gag"; wth, please? And you want delete this template? Please...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there no generic animation infobox? I think there should be one, which would allow people to put the animator in the infobox without having to create a brand new template for it. Reach Out to the Truth 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I haven't found any. If (don't delete per G7 D:!) someone has I will maybe change to delete.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:59, 12 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) 18:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per user request I realized, that some issues can cause. The animations were not made for this compliations; they were released previously. I will request some parameters on the talk page of {{infobox film}}. So I think this should be speedy deletion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:29, 13 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:ISO 3166 name DE-HB 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 to delete —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a combined deletion nomination for ca. 12,000 templates, of which I have only tagged one. These templates are 5895 templates in Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates. These were all created in May and June 2010, and none of them are used. I have asked about them at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#ISO 3166 templates, and he intends to use them in infoboxes. However, no actual examples of where they may be used have been given, and it is hard to see what purpose this many templates can have. For maintainability and user-friendliness, a template like Template:CountryAbbr, which is used to add country or region codes to the coordinates, is much more useful and maintainable. E.g. on an article like Weser, the cooridnates at the top right contain the region DE-HB. This is done automatically, based on the fields in the infobox. The same code could be generated through Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB, but this would mean that instead of one smart template that tackles all these codes (or a small number of such templates, if it would get too complex for one), we have an individual template for each and every code. For automatisation and maintenance, this is worse. Having one template per country, with the regions parametrised, could be a reasonable solution. I fail to see though how these 12,000 templates will reduce any workload or make life any easier. Fram (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe the issue is that switch statements are slow, and don't scale well to these numbers. This is why a similar approach was taken for Template:Portal for example. The downside of using many subtemplates is that it won't recognize linked or "flag linked" inputs. However, I am guessing the idea is to first check if one of these "ISO 3166" templates exists, and if so, use it, and if not, then go to the more expensive switch statements. This is my guess for why the decision was made to move away from switch statements. An even better solution, in my opinion, would be to have an iso_region field in each template. A bot could fill in the values, as was done for "infobox settlement", and double check them to make sure there is some level of correctness. If there is a mistake, or it cannot figure out the region, it could add the page to a maintanence category for further checking. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I should note that these are internal to the "parent" templates of {{ISO 3166 code}}, {{ISO 3166 code-3}}, {{ISO 3166 name}}, and {{ISO 3166 numeric}}, so really, those four ought to be the templates nominated here. I think I see what the author is trying to achieve (via experimenting with this edit to {{Infobox bathhouse}}), but in the past half year no further usage has taken place since then, so these 12K templates are 99.98% orphaned. I would also strongly agree with the previous IP editor that I think the correct approach for specifying the _region portion of the {{geobox coor}} coordinates is not to attempt to parse another infobox parameter (either with the ill-conceived {{CountryAbbr}} hack or with this ISO 3166 template system), but to have an additional infobox parameter strictly for that purpose. That's why coordinates_region was added to {{Infobox settlement}} about 7 months ago, accompanied by the subsequent bot work by Xenobot 6.2. Not only should these templates be deleted, but we really ought to get {{CountryAbbr}} et. al. deleted as well, since they have so many failure modes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly the work that Country Abbr does cannot be wholly replaced with this scheme, since we have not yet been given string parsing functions. It is not possible to (selectively) remove the "[" from a link. However the question of keeping the fields clean still arises, and indeed the question of whether, if we are going to run a bot across all instantiations of a template (for example Infobox settlement) it might not as well clean up the country and subdivision fields, which will substantially reduce the workload, and result in a more uniform appearance. This template set is in fact designed as a plug in or replacement for Country Abbr, I was hoping someone from the talk page there would work with it, however it appears not to date. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      I think you miss my point: I believe that CountryAbbr and this scheme are both flawed, one is not an improvement over the other. It is a fundamental design flaw for infoboxes to attempt to parse one parameter in order to generate a second parameter value; that second value should be specified directly. Amalthea said it best: I'm sure it was intended to be a smart hack, but it's really just a hack. Infoboxes should get the standardized input to generate the more complex representations, not vice versa. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed Infoboxes should get the standardized input rather than sending a bot to provide conversions as and when. And I agree CountryAbbr is a hack, it transcludes a lot of stuff which standardised input would not need. Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep For the reason that this scheme provides many useful functions, and can easily provide more, not simply the conversions and clean up documented, but also validation. Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment to closing admin: this should probably be re-listed for additional comments instead of a no-consensus closure. At that time, I will post a notice at Template talk:Infobox settlement, Template talk:CountryAbbr, etc. as I think that will put the discussion in front of more eyes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 6 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) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RF. These add useful functionality to other templates, the overhead of keeping them is small (name collisions unlikely), and the cost of deleting them would be high. -Selket Talk 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, what "useful functionality"? They're unused! They could be used as an alternative to {{CountryAbbr}}, but they would be an incomplete alternative, which is the reason I presume they have been left idle. You'd be swapping a massive #switch statement for a large set of small templates, using transclusion instead of a parser function to achieve the end result. But many thousands of {{Infobox settlement}} transclusions use flag icons alongside the country name, and that means these templates could never replace CountryAbbr as now written. I maintain that the better solution is to add a new parameter to Infobox settlement et. al. to directly specify the region code, rather than trying to deduce it by decoding a different infobox parameter. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly unused, it is being used by Template:Infobox bathhouse, as you pointed out above. However, that could be easily fixed by just reverting the May 2010 edit. The over 10,000 transclusion count should not be trusted, since most of those are self-referential. Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, there are only four mainspace articles (via Infobox bathhouse) that use these templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrwsc. We should strive to fix the infoboxes, rather than rely on 12000 templates to convert the input for us. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have a starting point to do that. Xenobot 6.2 updated thousands of infoboxes a few months ago. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the infoboxes are fixed (i.e. the placename fields are correct) then this provides an excellent solution. The idea that it is somehow better to add a mystery code to every infobox, rather than simply correcting a fraction which have formatting errors ... is .. typical Wikipedia I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    I dispute the claim that "formatting errors" are the problem. I assert that a relatively large fraction of Infobox settlement transclusions make use of flag icon images, which inhibits the deployment of this template system. Are you suggesting that the use of image markup or flag templates are "formatting errors"? If there is consensus to remove the flag icons from these infoboxes (which is not altogether a bad idea), then your template solution becomes viable. But without that, it isn't. You can use the unadorned subdivision_name=Pakistan as a key to transclude Template:ISO 3166 code Pakistan, for example, but you can't use any of:
    • subdivision_name=[[Pakistan]]
    • subdivision_name=[[Image:Flag of Pakistan.svg|25px]] [[Pakistan]]
    • subdivision_name={{flag|Pakistan}}
    • subdivision_name={{PAK}}
    You would also be out of luck if the subdivision_name parameter had a reference, for example. If the infoboxes are fixed (i.e. the placename fields are correct) is a mighty big "If" and needs to be addressed first. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:01, 26 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) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really I would say "No current consensus to delete" here, six weeks is long enough. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 7 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:SudhirSeries 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) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SudhirSeries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SudhirNovels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:VimalNovels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SunilNovels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No links. Non-notable topics. Not useful. Unused or low usage. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is under expansion. New links will be added soon. Jon Ascton (talk) 14:15, 21 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) 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't make again until the articles exist. Build the content first, then the navbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:16, 7 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:Humble ISD 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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Humble ISD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Six months ago, in a long AfD, I developed the unique "table format" for middle school articles in a parent district as a compromise between giving information and not having full articles.

That change led to a drastic reduction in the usefulness of this template, reduced to helping navigate between the various high schools. I think it's time to put it out of its misery. Raymie (t • c) 21:55, 21 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) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for navigation between high schools. Many other school districts have templates for navigating between the high schools in the district. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 18 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:Unsigned8 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) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a non-standard "unsigned" template that was only ever used four times. It's not very grammatical ("This comment is unsigned ... without signing their name" is a bit redundant). Not really a necessary template. {{unsigned}} does the job fine. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment changed the text. I suspect this is supposed to be a light touch way of saying "You forgot to sign, and if you didn't know here's how you do it." at the same time as doing what "unsigned" does. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55, 14 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) 04:40, 24 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) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: TfD noincluded ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that the combination of {{Unsigned}} and {{Uw-sign}} is a more effective approach. 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 or a notice on a user's talk page, and not directly on discussion pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:11, 8 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:Aboutgivenname & others 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) 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aboutgivenname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aboutsurname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aboutname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is there really any need for more Hatnote templates? The {{about}} template will do all of this functionality already. WOSlinker (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: Yes there is a need and thank you for you concern. They are an important part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy standards doc here: WPAPO:HN. The standards doc calls for some consistency between articles of the project that {{about}} just does not provide because a ton of random misspellings are presented: "surname" vs. "family name", "given name" vs. "first name". --Hutcher (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to delete them is that they are not documented, so make it difficult for people to use templ properly. Documentation would be good if they are kept, but not sure if they are really needed. About does the same as the templates, for example: {{about|the given name}} -
This page is about the given name. For other uses, see Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 6 (disambiguation).
-- WOSlinker (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being not documented would seem to be a reason to document them, not a reason to delete them. If they are undocumentable, that might be a reason to delete them, but I don't believe that's the case here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reason to delete but it doesn't help when they are not documented as no-one will tend to use them when they contain various options that need explaining and other templates such as about and other uses are documented. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might strike "Another reason to delete them is that" then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"not documented", JHJ, in itself is curable. But the background is: why is it not documented? How can anyone find this template when searching for it? All in all, the Hatnote industry (hey, now ~70+, and that's just for mainspace & excluding the parameter-variants) -- that industry is not to be approached for any serious editor. Believe me, I tried. 70+ standards just for a link? -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#hatnote. We need the templates to try and establish some consistency in articles about names. At the moment there isn't any; everyone is just doing it their own way. It's a benefit to the project to keep these.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project "Anthroponymy" I do not know, and (more relevant) it does not teach us, Wikipedians, a guideline. When working with hatnote templates (there are ~70 today), we do not need specialist meanings. The resulting text does fine, for every Wikipedia-reader. That is why I think & say the number of hatnotes can reduce, because we are not limited to groups' mental space. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use then:

I say: replace every one of them with the simple, general {{about}}. We do not need a template for every hatnote situation. An editor knows well. as for documentong (which is 1:1 related to usage, I'd say) reduce number & situations of hatnotes. Unused, unknown, unstandard, unfamiliar text.
Delete. -DePiep (talk)

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) 05:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep much as I dislike one-for-every-occasion templates, Hutcher's point is valid. We have standard terms for family names and given names, which while they might not cover everything, and may be in some cases a pedantic or PC move from last name/surname or first name/Christian name, for many names from Far East only "surname" would really apply (why we threw that particular term out is a mystery, Newspeak I suppose). Rich Farmbrough, 10:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Created some docs. Looks like I wasn't paying attention, the template is "surname". Rich Farmbrough, 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
No, these templates do nothing for WP:Anthroponymy. RF, you using "familyname" for "surname" while working at it, says it all: even an editor who's into it is not helped out by the very templates.
With or without documentation: JHunterJ and RF do not explain how these specific templates would help or prevent a user into using the right/wrong "word" (so template). If an editor reads but misunderstands the descriptions in WP:Anthroponymy, they still end up using the wrong template out of these three. Also, I have not seen a single example of good documentation, help, background and guideline for such cases. Seventy+ hatnotes to provide a hatnote link? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it seems like RF's slip shows the value of these templates; as long as he uses {{Aboutsurname}}, he can be confident that the hatnote will use the standard terminology, without having to worry about what that standard currently is. -- Visviva (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as long as he uses ... -- doesn't that say exactly that even an experienced user needs an extra, unknown rule? So, only correct in theory. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that objection applies to any template: you can only use it if you know it's there. This is why I would prefer that this template just passed a parameter to {{About}}, so that any inconsistencies would be minimized. -- Visviva (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about 'finding' the (right) template. Yeah, if you know it's there, maybe no problem. The basic problem is: there are ~100 standards for hatnote links. 100+ Standards! How do we guide an editor to the right one? What does a standard mean if there are so much? How do we know they are not contradicting? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for more naming hatnotes, there is Category:Hatnote templates for names. This category is missing in WP:Anthroponymy. -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 15 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) 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Standardization is good. It would be even better, however, if this were using {{about}} on the backend. -- Visviva (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and improve documentation. Correct, or even consistent, terminology for names is hard. This bill shows even the Vermont legislature can't get it right. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like "Documentation will solve everything". Could you indicate, e.g. by existing examples, how a useful documentation would look like? I have never found a hatnote I needed so far. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even as a longstanding member of WikiProject Anthroponymy, I can't see the need for these. I refer to Template:Other uses so often that I have a link to it at the end of my user page, and the choice of hatnote templates really does not need to get any longer. Template:About is enough; it's easy to put "the name/surname/given name" as the first parameter. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:48, 24 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) 18:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant template (in functionality) of {{about}}. There's little difference in using "Aboutname" instead of "About|name". The specific reason given for keeping these templates is to ensure consistency between articles, however choosing the wrong template and choosing the wrong text in the generic one are problems inherent in either solution and would have to be addressed in the same manner in either case (by authors who know the correct way to hatnote). In short, I don't believe these templates even solve the issue they were intended to address. — Bility (talk) 17:55, 16 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:Anna University 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) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anna University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete Anna University was split in 2007 to six universities. The colleges are now affiliated with those universities, not with the defunct Anna University. Muhandes (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few of the college articles I checked indicate they are still constituent-status and the Anna University article states the university still holds them. Doesn't appear to be defunct.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know (and I was not corrected yet, doing several hundred edits on the subject over a period of six months), Anna University does not exist any more. Colleges which used to be affiliate with Anna University are now affiliated with one of the six universities which used to be divisions of Anna University. I suppose not all of them bother to update the exact affiliation. There is also confusion since one of the six universities, Anna University, Chennai, kept the original logo and website, and only changed the name. So colleges affiliated with Anna University, Chennai might simply say they are still affiliated with "Anna University". I think having this template only causes more confusion.--Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 28 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) 18:23, 6 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:Inet-note-ref 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inet-note-ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I would speedy this, but it might have some strange purpose. It's unused, though, and probably pretty safe to delete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I watchlisted this template and noted it on my todo list as something to consider when I got around to finishing fixing a few small limitations in {{Cite IETF}}. {{Inet-note-ref}} can handle IANA assignments and MIBs, which is something {{Cite IETF}} cannot do. I'm not too sure that merging/adding support for those into {{Cite IETF}} would be proper, as I wrote {{Cite IETF}} mainly for citing IETF documents, although I did add support for IENs and RTRs. All the other IETF functionality of {{Inet-note-ref}} can be replaced with {{Cite IETF}}, which uses {{Citation/core}} and follows the citation format of many of the other Cite x templates. The original version of {{Inet-note-ref}} on the Russian Wikipedia seems to have been used a little more than the version imported to the English Wikipedia but it hasn't been widely deployed either. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:32, 10 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) 02:06, 25 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) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and three years old. It can be moved to a user space prior to deleting in order to use salvage coding.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:17, 7 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:Jewish Educational Center/Infobox 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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jewish Educational Center/Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use could be replaced with {{Infobox school}}. WOSlinker (talk) 17:41, 6 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 jec 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) 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox jec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use could be replaced with {{Infobox university}}. WOSlinker (talk) 17:39, 6 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:Smallref 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) 03:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Previous AFD

Styles a reference in <small>...</small> tags; redundant now that {{reflist}} and <references /> both style the font at 90%. One use. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It styles the footnote number within the article text in <small>...</small> tags, not the footnoted text. It is useful to reduce the size of the wikitext by having just a single template reference for each use, not two pairs of nested tags. — Hgrosser (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one use for this template is at Standard electrode potential (data page). The table has two notes, of which one uses a standard footnote and one uses {{smref}}. The difference in the size of the in-text citations is subtle or nonexistent, depending on the browser. Example: {{smallref|group=note|1=smallref}}<ref group=note>Standard</ref> {{reflist-talk|group=note}}
If the idea is to reduce the markup, then {{r}} was designed to do this. Looking at the previous AfD again, it appears the idea was to reduce size of the in-text citation. This can be an issue with tables, as the labels for group names are a minimum of three characters; this has been resolved with the recent Cite update that added styled labels. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:08, 9 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:Erotic Actor 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, per T3, as redundant to {{Infobox adult biography}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Erotic Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and {{Infobox person}} would do anyway. WOSlinker (talk) 17:17, 6 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 AFA 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) 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AFA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use could be replaced with {{Infobox school}} WOSlinker (talk) 17:09, 6 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:Empires 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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a motley collection of unrelated articles with nothing in common linked toguether by nothing more than the preferences of the editors, with so many states that existed throught history that could be called empires the selection of the ones to include cannot be done in an objective way, therefore this template can only be usefull to the editors who created it.Andres rojas22 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Cannot agree they were collection of unrelated articles. They were all empires in different periods as shown. The template has also existed for a long time. EDIT: I see you edited your comment internally to expand your sentence, but there should better be a recent discussion before requesting deletion of this long-established template (and you originally came here with only one short sentence). --Enchyin (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very useful navigation template for people interested by History. Even I think that a separated "Imperial Empires" template should be created --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep:same as Omar-Toons, very useful, also they're not a motley collection, if you check the pages, you'll see there all related. And lay-out makes it very user-friendly.karimobo (talk) 17:15, 10 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:MovieTome person 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) 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MovieTome person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, also no chance of ever being used again since MovieTome is defunct and redirects to Metacritic. Also nominating:

which are redirects to {{MovieTome person}}, both have no transclusions. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there is no chance of it being used in the future. Sophus Bie (talk) 16:52, 6 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:Gastropods Wikiproject 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) 18:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gastropods Wikiproject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old template, which was up for speedy deletion in 2008, but the tag was removed by the template's creator and no-one ever restored it. The criterion T3 has since been tightened, so I can't restore the tag. Unused. Placement unclear. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was new and too proud of my work. Useless template. marked it with {{db-auth}} to help the process along --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 18:40, 6 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:Backlog progress 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. If you want to have it kept for longer, please give it some documentation of both how to use it and its intended uses. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Backlog progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The time of creation and edit summary leads me to think that it might have been made for use in the Contribution Team backlog drive. As that drive is still in progress, there is still a chance that this template might be used. Sophus Bie (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Short Term Keep -- Sophus Bie is correct, that's what I created it for. It was in use on the backlogs page; if you wouldn't mind could we just keep it through the backlog drive and I'll just delete it as creator when it finishes?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:40, 9 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:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Invite 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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Invite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the invitation template of a dead WikiProject. MMOGs are under the purview of WikiProject Video games, which has its own invitation template: {{Vgproj welcome}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Old, useless. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sophus Bie (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I don't see any reason to delete other than house keeping. Might as well redirect to the VG Project welcome template. I wouldn't oppose to deletion though. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:12, 7 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:Current MMOGCM 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) 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current MMOGCM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old COTM of dead WikiProject. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Can't see any potential for use. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sophus Bie (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WikiProject Video games is hardly a "dead WikiProject". The member list currently contains 370 names, and there are multiple messages on the talk page each week. Their formal collaboration appears to be dormant, but it could easily be revived at any time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference is to WikiProject MMO, which was merged in the same way a raindrop merges with a lake; most people at WP:VG don't know it ever existed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused for a long time, and unused so no need to keep it. Could easily be created again if ever needed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WOSlinker. If WikiProject Video games had a MMO work group, then the template might be worth keeping; as things are now, however, there is no potential for a MMO collaboration of the month. By the way, WikiProject Video games has its own no-so-active collaboration of the week. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Like the other MMO template, I think redirecting to the VG project equivalent ({{Collab-gaming}}) is the best treatment. But I wouldn't object to deletion. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above; unused template of a dead Wikiproject.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:38, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_6&oldid=1140217445"