Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5 edit

Template:Falling in Reverse 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Falling in Reverse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too soon. Only two directly-related links to the band and its debut album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I don't even know why this template was nominated, but Falling in Reverse are a well known band that gained noteriety due to Ronnie being the former lead singer of Escape the Fate. There are enough sources to prove the information is correct, and just because the band is recent doesn't mean the template should be deleted. As an editor who specializes in giving artists their own templates who don't already have one, I say keep. Templates are an easy way to organize the album and single articles and chronology, and in my opinion all artists should have them. TJD2 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they don't have articles. A navbox is not intended to serve as an artist's discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was intended for that, but it does make everything easier to navigate.

Delete per WP:NENAN. Do you really think you need a box to navigate two articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They'll soon have more articles. BrokenWall3 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NENAN and see also WP:FUTURE. It can be recreate AFTER there are more articles. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But why delete it now? Instead we should improve it. BrokenWall3 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there are some soon-to-be-created related articles (e.g., singles, Ronnie Radke) in the works that can meet our GNG/Music guidelines, it seems just a bit soon for this template. Gongshow ^Talk 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then I guess I will have to be the one to create them. Just give me time. BrokenWall3 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Template seems created in good faith, but is new and therefore does not link to very much. As BrokenWall has volunteered to create more articles for the subject, the template should be kept for a long enough period of time that those articles can be created and evaluated. I'm open to deletion if progress isn't made on that in a reasonable timeframe or if the articles aren't sufficiently notable. Jorgath (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until populated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 11 February 2012 (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:Rumours 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant as all songs that do have links in this template can be navigated to using the {{Fleetwood Mac}} template. Anyone wanting more info on the entire track list would simply go to Rumours. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, completely redundant to {{Fleetwood Mac}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:30, 9 February 2012 (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:Image-Poor-Quality 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-Poor-Quality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cleanup image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Image-Poor-Quality with Template:Cleanup image.
(Really, to replace {{Image-Poor-Quality}} with {{cleanup image}}.)

{{Image-Poor-Quality}}, apparently an image maintenance tag, just states that an image is of poor quality, offering no suggestions as to how it might be improved. In this state, it could almost be seen as a weak sort of disclaimer. The template {{cleanup image}}, while not specifically mentioning "poor quality", provides more useful information, and the reason given as the first parameter should make it clear why the image needs cleanup. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect should be uncontroversial here, and {{cleanup image}} already supports an optional reason with the same syntax. There's certainly no need for two overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious about this. A poor quality image may need replacing, or may be labelled as "use as last resort" whereas Cleanup image may be used where some despeckling or alignment is required. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I was going to vote "Delete" because it was totally pointless, offering no suggestions as to how it might be improved. But since the template is used for really bad pictures in general, I thought it could be somewhat useful if some instructions were added. So that's what I did. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:39, 5 February 2012 (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) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to agree with Farmbrough here, and suggest that {{Image-Poor-Quality}} suggests the complete replacement or non-use of an image, while {{cleanup image}} is fundamentally a "download this image, and photoshop it up" template. They have distinct functions and say similar, but not equivalent, things about a less-than-perfect image. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 04:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use this tag when you need to just start over. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that rewording the template would be an ideal solution here. Should the template suggest "If a higher-quality replacement is available, consider replacing uses of this image. If this image is no longer used anywhere, consider sending it to FFD." or something like that? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2012 (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 Honorverse character 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Honorverse character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Repository for purely in-universe content, exclusively used on articles which are themselves purely in-universe. Should any individual characters from this series eventually need an infobox they can transclude {{infobox character}} directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful when we already have {{infobox character}}. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 11 February 2012 (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:Admiral T 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Admiral T (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains link to only one article besides the parent article; WP:NENAN. Gongshow ^Talk 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Send 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Links to very few articles; template does not seem necessary. Gongshow ^Talk 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 9 February 2012 (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.