Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2 edit

Template:RoutemapIcon 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) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

basically unused, could be substituted. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 2 June 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:Rating 1 3 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) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rating 1 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rating 2 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rating 3 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, while {{rating}} is used. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 2 June 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:RList 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) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Recent GA articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused experiment. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 2 June 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.

Mozambique district 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) 18:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Balama District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chiúre District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Macomia District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mecúfi District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Meluco District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mocimboa da Praia District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Montepuez District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mueda District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muidumbe District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Namuno District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nangade District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palma District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pemba Metuge District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Quissanga District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All unused for 4 years since creation in 2008 and also have little navigational use. WOSlinker (talk) 10:23, 2 June 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:Comment 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) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ill-advised repurposing of a deleted template. Encourages discussion-by-bold-words by implying that anything which isn't a "!vote" (urgh) has to be prefaced by some flag as such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I've ever read it. I see "Comment" as the opposite of "Reply" or response. It's more of a general "Hey, I've got something new to say". That's my take anyway. (see, I didnt !vote)--v/r - T P 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per deletion of template:support and template:oppose. Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no need for such templates? --High Contrast (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an anti-need for them. Anything you type into a discussion is a "comment": markup templates like this simply create confusion by making some false distinction between "comments" and something else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue demands a differentiated approach by you. It is true that any comment is a "comment". But like on Commons, here on Wikipedia are votings, too. Markup templates like this simply helps to differ plain "comments" from "keep" or "delete" votes in order to prevent confusion. --High Contrast (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is fundamentally not the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is fundamentally not true. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates is a plain poll. There, the single users share their thoughts about any image in short messages where mostly no discussion is needed or possible because it is a simple list of opinions. During this process a markup could make sense. --High Contrast (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why FPC is worded as a vote, but it shouldn't be, and we certainly shouldn't encourage any more such thiking by having voting templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, your disagreement with this template is based on personal liking. It is ok being against such templates. Why not? But accusing someone who creates such templates as a person that ignores "fundamental Wikimedia principles" is strange. --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 30 May 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) 03:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, such a template is widely used. --High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Commons. Commons has a very much more vote-centric culture than Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has not a much more vote-centric culture than Wikipedia. It has more votes about files. But there are also file polls in Wikipedia. As I pointed out above, in such polls (e.g. featured pictures) such a template may be useful. --High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may make people from Commons feel more at home on this one specific part of Wikipedia, but it's not obvious that it would actually improve the quality of discourse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep It's used like {{question}} in many situations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Per Bwilkins, and is handy when working with drafts, AfC, or students as part of the WP:USEP. Don't really see why this is proposed for deletion (or {{support}} and {{oppose}} were deleted as referenced in the nomination). AndrewN ^talk 05:15, 9 June 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 national sports federations 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 procedural close, discussion listed multiple times. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox national sports federations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think that this template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template was created without consesus, out of standard and there's a template better than this: Template:Infobox Organization. See this discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 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) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has relisted this himself at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 4#Template:Infobox national sports federations. Probably best leaving additional comments over there rather than having this split over two discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how annoying. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 7 June 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:Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation 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) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains purely hoax information. Creator (User:FIFA PHILIPPINES) is a possible sockpuppet of longterm vandal User:Brianmagallano. -WayKurat (talk) 03:27, 2 June 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.