Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 9

< July 8	July 10 >

July 9 edit

Template:Series module 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) 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Series module (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed now that we have {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only transclusion was on an orphaned sub-template of a now-converted sidebar, which I've speedied. This is redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:31, 10 July 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:BorderBox 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) 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and generally redundant to {{mbox}} and other message boxes. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've long since standardised on other meta-templates: this is redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:29, 10 July 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:2011–12 Liga Indonesia Premier Division (LI) finalists 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) 03:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011–12 Liga Indonesia Premier Division (LI) finalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

blanked. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 10 July 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:IndianTelevisionAcademyAwardBestActorJury 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, someone should check the rest of them (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:IndianTelevisionAcademyAward) to see if they were created by the same sock. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template of unreferenced information. Should be deleted unless the information comes from reliable references. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment, you should first nominate the associated article for deletion, and if it is deleted, then this can be deleted as depending on the article. I found a source for the 2011 awards. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much involved in cleaning of templates. But won't the template be deleted even if one of it's entry is unreferenced? I think the creator rushed in making this templates. We can always remake it if all are referenced. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we generally don't add citations to navigation boxes, so long as there is an associated article which contains the citations. if there is a problem with the associated article, then we should address the problem there. as I said, I found a source for the award. if you don't think that the official website for the agency issuing the award is a reliable source, or if you think the award is not notable, then you should probably take the article to AFD. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... i see that you have found all references. I dont mind self-published sources for awards. These are okay. How do we close this TfD? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But just as we thought that they are reliable, i don't think they are completely reliable. Shatrughan Sinha won't be wearing two different suits in same functions (Image 4 in grey suit and image 12 in dark blue.) and definitely not repeating the last year's suite again the next year. (Image 10, same dark blue suit.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, if you don't think that is a reliable source, then we should delete the articles as well. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by a block-evading sock. Would have G5-ed, if it hadn't been for Frietjes' intervening edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 14 July 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.

Boston Celtics season rosters 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) 00:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston Celtics 2008–09 roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Boston Celtics 2009–10 roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is against all of the sports' WikiProjects to have roster navboxes specific to seasons. We have speedy deleted some of these types before at WP:NBA. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we only need current roster boxes. rosters for a particular season are kept in the article for that season. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Players' bios dont need navboxs for non-championship seasons; there is already enough clutter with navboxes for championship seasons. Not surprising there was temptation to create this, as WP:NAVBOX #3, "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent", is usually liberally applied.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I oppose non-championship season rosters for pro basketball. The great pro athletes have enough templates on their pages already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information doesn't need to be available in this form. We have too many navboxes as it is. "What links here" could have been very useful for maintenance, but the navboxes mess everything up. Zagalejo^^^ 22:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is the template always to be delete? If the all of editor cannot creat the template except for the administrator, ok, delele all.Августу (...) 05:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- English, please. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he's saying that "if only administrators, not all users, can create templates, then delete them all". Not a particularly relevant argument. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, I think even championship team roster templates are nothing but litter, but non-championship seasons are definitely of no value. Reso lute 02:51, 13 July 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:Define? 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 redirect to {{clarify}} -- Selket ^Talk 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Define? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirect to {{Clarify}}, which is essentially what this template is asking for, to define, that is to clarify the term. If kept, should be renamed to {{Define}} without the question mark, since this is not a question but a request. Debresser (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Clarify}}. They both point to the same link Wikipedia:Please clarify but with different text. this also addresses lack of documentation for "Define?".—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 9 July 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.