Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 2

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

May 2 edit


Baseball rivalry templates 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) 01:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mets–Phillies rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cardinals–Cubs rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dodgers–Giants rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mets–Yankees rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yankees – Red Sox rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yankees–Dodgers rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yankees–Giants rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates serve no purpose. They do not provide any internavigability that is not already covered by the team-specific navboxes or within the lead articles. In addition, some are painfully colored. — KV5 • Talk • 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not voting yet, but might you want to also add the other similar templates? There are templates for Yanks/Mets, Yanks/Sox, Yanks/Dodgers, Yanks/Giants, and Dodgers/Giants (I might be missing one). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An article that would belong in a "rivalry" template would also belong in the templates of both teams, making this redundant. As for the color issue, there was no good solution. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be at most one baseball rivalry template listing all of them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is Template:MLB rivalries, which I agree should not be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Muboshgu here also; that template provides internavigability the way it was meant to be. Keep the main one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've started to remove the templates from the affected pages. I agree to keep Template:MLB rivalries and merge the others into that template. – SNIyer12, (talk), 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing needs to be added to {{MLB rivalries}} due to this deletion discussion. You probably shouldn't be removing them either until a final determination is made. — KV5 • Talk • 00:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I was about to say you should let this run its course before doing anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Too late. I'm going to roll back all of those changes in the interest of continuing the TfD process. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you have an interest in rivalries, a single MLB rivalry template will help navigate this ... NOUNS involved in each rivalry will undoubtedly be noted in the article, and don't need to be placed in a separate box. I think those boxes become magnets for a whole lot of thigns that are not really part of the rivalries. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I strongly agree with delete. We should keep the MLB rivalries templates. No need to have separate templates for each rivalry, as for the other sports leagues. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What is up with all the baseball editors of this site being so delete happy? These templates serve as an extremely valuable navigation tool. Many articles refer to these rivalries and in order to better understand them people should have a place to access all of the relevant articles as it gives the reader a good clue about the extensiveness of the rivalries. Arnabdas (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... what? Baseball articles have more templates than nearly every other sport. And I love navboxes as a tool; it's rare that I think one should be deleted. But not in this case. "These templates serve as an extremely valuable navigation tool" - to what? The articles themselves already do everything that these templates do and more. The templates are also a resting place for information that's oftentimes barely tangentially related to actual rivalries. — KV5 • Talk • 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are plenty of articles that are linked. Take the Subway Series template. We are talking about 3 different rivalries there and multiple World Series between them. Yankees-Red Sox has the multiple LCS, the Bucky Dent game, Victoria Snellgrove, things like that. I think some templates link to more articles than others, but to delete all of them seems very counterproductive to me. It doesn't help people really understand the true extent of notability of the rivalries. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A navbox could have 84 different things linked in it but that doesn't make them related. The actual articles that have to do with the rivalries proper should be linked from the rivalry articles themselves. Others may not understand the notability of rivalries, but I do, and the template for that particular article does nothing that the article itself can't already accomplish. You'll notice also that the Subway Series template isn't included for the very reason that it does transcend multiple teams beyond just one versus one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand wanting to delete some of them as I was struggling to put together items for templates for others. However, the Yankees-Dodgers template has a lot of unique history to it that the Subway Series template does not have. The Yankees-Red Sox template also has links to other articles in an organized fashion that helps the reader navigate through all the notable articles in relation to the rivalry. Arnabdas (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like what? What is actually in the Yankees-Dodgers template that couldn't be quietly subsumed into the MLB rivalries template? I see nothing that wouldn't be appropriate in the other navbox. — KV5 • Talk • 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like the two Bronx is Burning articles and the Yankee Years book. Those are relevant to the Yankees-Dodgers lore. Arnabdas (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That amuses me. Baseball editors are generally considered the worst group for having too many navboxes. (not to reopen the debate your comment just struck me as amusing). -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to the articles themselves, not the templates. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the articles in these navboxes are too loosely related to the rivalry; none of the links take you anywhere to learn more about the rivalry or are (barely) tangentially related. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles are far too loosely related to require a navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NENAN. Looking at the first, for example, there isn't even a single article in the template that is actually relevant to the supposed rivalry. There are links related to one team, there are links related to the other, and there are Easter Eggs, but nothing dedicated to the topic. These are effectively irrepairable failures of WP:SYNTH. An issue, I suspect, that plagues the articles themselves, but that is a different story. Also, I concur with not allowing SNyler to remove and redirect these templates as a means of shortcutting the discussion as he has a habit of quietly trying to restore at a later time. Resolute 17:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 6 May 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 Hutton Grammar 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hutton Grammar School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, seems to have been destined for use only in one article (?). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like an experiment that was never completed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userfy, if the user still wants it for testing). Redundant to the template already used in the article, and title suggests use only in one article where a non-standard template isn't needed. Peter E. James (talk) 01:26, 3 May 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 Bus Route 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, other moves/redirects can be enacted and/or discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bus Route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been superseded by {{Infobox bus line}} and is now orphaned except for links in non-article space. Bility (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just redirect to {{Infobox bus line}} so that that one is easier to find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs)
  • In this case a redirect would be sensible - and you can do that yourself, without having to TfD it. I'd suggest making one from {{Infobox bus route}} (lower case) too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not being used, what's the point of redirecting it? — Bility (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the following comment, internationalisation; it helps users who use the "wrong" name; and discourages them for recreating a duplicate template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bus route" is the usual phrase in British English, and it seems to be in other varieties - the US categories, and many of the articles in them, use it. "Bus line" is ambiguous - it may refer to either a route or a company (a search for articles finds a few pages such as North Olmsted Municipal Bus Line). The superseded template has a better title, and maybe Template:Infobox bus line should be moved to Template:Infobox bus route if it is only intended for individual routes. Peter E. James (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe "bus line" was chosen to mirror {{Infobox rail line}}. I just realized User:Calliopejen1 responded above, and they were the driving force behind the template (see the two threads here). It seems they favor a redirect as well, however if everyone likes "bus route" over "bus line", I'd support that as it's what I'm used to myself. — Bility (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment about the preferred name, and I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever. I'd probably use both terms in my day-to-day life. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 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:Association football game sheet 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Association football game sheet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a preferred format and agreed to not be used by this discussion. Digirami (talk) 20:49, 2 May 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 community 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused infobox template. Not clear when this would be an appropriate infobox to use, as opposed to an infobox summarizing demographic statistics for a better-defined area. (See complaints on template talk page.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 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:Area code AL 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) 02:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Area code AL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I just created Template:Area code box/states, which does the job of this template and every other state/territory/country-specific template that was essentially a subtemplate for Template:Area code box. Now these are all orphaned and should be deleted. This deletion request includes every template in Category:Area code templates except Template:Area code box, Template:Area code footer, Template:Area code list, and Template:Infobox Mass Area Code. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 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:Primera Division Uruguaya playoff 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) 02:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primera Division Uruguaya playoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused bracket MicroX (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty much a duplicate of this. Digirami (talk) 20:40, 2 May 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:Round10-MLSformat 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) 02:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round10-MLSformat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. MicroX (talk) 19:06, 2 May 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:Milan Metro/next 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) 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milan Metro/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template , Deprecated Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 2 May 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:Taxonomy/Trimerophytina 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Trimerophytina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Taxonomy/Heterokonta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Taxonomy/Albuginales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Serves as a notice to inform the user they have entered a taxon no longer used in the automatic taxobox taxon database. Would use a redirect, but that causes errors with the whole system. Got a better idea? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 May 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:OPSI edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused deprecated template, migrated use to {{UK-LEG ext}} or {{UK-LEG}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 2 May 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:Italian ethnicity edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simperseded by infobox at Italian people. Broken, and, consequently, unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 May 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:Iraq-war 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) 03:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iraq-war (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Campaignbox Iraq War}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 2 May 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:Istiea edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use template that is superseded by the hierachical list in the infobox at Istiaia. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:40, 2 May 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:Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps 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) 04:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{IRGC}}. Not a clear-cut redundancy, but that one provides more pertinent links than this one does. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:26, 2 May 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:Cleanup-jargon 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) 19:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-jargon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Technical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-jargon with Template:Technical.
cf Template_talk:Technical#Merge_with_template:cleanup-jargonCurb Chain (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. As I agreed on that talkpage discussion as well. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as original proponent of the merge :) --Waldir talk 14:55, 2 May 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:Ecozones 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) 03:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 2 May 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:Taxonomy/Dictyoptera (2nd nomination) 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Dictyoptera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Serves as a functional disambiguation and placeholder to prevent creation of a duplicate entry in the taxon template database. By its nature, it is only transcluded when there is an error in the user-entry of an automatic taxonomy. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 May 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:Taxonomy/Insectivora (2nd nomination) 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Insectivora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 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:Taxonomy/Lipotyphla (2nd nomination) 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 --Stemonitis (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Lipotyphla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above the above. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and deprecate Template:Taxonomy/Erinaceomorpha and Template:Taxonomy/Soricomorpha instead (Asher, Robert J; Helgen, Kristofer M (2010). "Nomenclature and placental mammal phylogeny". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10 (1): 102. Bibcode:2010BMCEE..10..102A. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-102. PMC 2865478. PMID 20406454.). Ucucha 05:07, 8 May 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:Canada_CP_2006 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) 03:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada_CP_2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template, all transculusions migrated to use {{Canada census}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 2 May 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:Use British English 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. Without the topicon, I have no reason to continue the deletion discussion. I was unaware of the tracking category, which does seem useful, I was only bothered by the icon, which consensus seems very strongly in favor of getting rid of here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use British English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm all for consistent grammar and spelling, but I'm not for these topicons. To be quite frank, they look disgusting, and really serve little purpose. New editors will be highly unlikely to see or care about language consistency requests, and experienced editors can tell just by looking at the spelling that is already there which version of English is in play on that page. Also, there's the talk page, which has it's own template. I would not be averse a message being placed in the editnotice page for these articles, as those would be seen by the editors and not by everyone else, however a change, I believe, is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flag probably shouldn't be there - it isn't in the other templates of this type. The main purpose of these templates is to put articles into a maintenance category, which may be useful. Peter E. James (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The flag topicon was only added very recently (see diff) and I would remove it myself if I knew I could do so without wrecking the template (maybe a template-savvy person will help me out here?). In any case, the purpose of the template is to place an article in a useful maintenance category, which it has been doing for over a year and no issues have been raised until the topicon was added today. Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jenks24. The addition of the topicon can be discussed but we don't have to delete the template to remove it. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went slightly bold and reverted the template to its state before the topicon was added, so consensus on that issue can be achieved. --Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the form restored by Muhandes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The purpose of the template is not to add a flag, it's to add the page to a maintenance category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with everyone above. The template is much better without that pesky flag icon appearing at the top right of the articles. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 11:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciated the version with the flag because by simply looking at the page you know what spelling and grammar you're supposed to be using. It's obvious on some pages, but less so on others, and especially if you go in to edit a section only, and make small edits, you're more prone to make these types of mistakes. The flag at the top of the page I find of particular value as an editor. I also find it of value as a reader because in case of wondering why things are spelled differently on different pages, there's a flag in the corner clearly denoting that it's article written in British English. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can discuss the use of the flag on the template's talk page but it's not crucial for its existence. Although, it would be better if the template's existence could generate a WP:EDITNOTICE for the article, explaining this (e.g. like the one that appears when you edit Grand Theft Auto IV). Unfortunately, I don't think that's currently possible, although a bot could be created to do so. I'll create a request at WP:BOTREQ. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flags != languages. Consider a Canadian flag. People living under the union flag also speak Welsh, for example. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep particularly useful for articles relating to Great Britain.--The copyeditor's corner 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the flag shouldn't be there. As creator, I conceived this as a maintenance task for consistent spelling going forwards, and I still see this a being a useful template going forwards. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without flag as per the above. In particular, I support SoWhy's idea of using an edit notice to more clearly delineate the variety of English that should be used. Pfainuk talk 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh? I had the idea of putting it in the editnotice way before him. Regardless, I agree with him so I'm just mentioning this for the sake of mentioning it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 2 May 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:16TeamBracket-TTProLeague edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-TTProLeague (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Exact copy of Template:16TeamBracket. TTPro League Template is not in use by any tournament article. Should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Digirami (talk) 20:41, 2 May 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:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 1994-Present 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) 03:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 1994-Present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant with Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 1994–2000 and Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 2001–2020. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 2 May 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_May_2&oldid=1187779056"