Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4 edit

Template:RomColRow 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) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:25, 4 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:RI map references 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) 03:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RI map references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 4 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:Nst 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) 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 4 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:Pnw 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) 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 4 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:Nswe 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) 03:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 4 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:RCA 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) 03:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 4 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:PIDSAF 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) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 4 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:PSC (Catalonia) 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) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PSC (Catalonia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 4 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:Novel version 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, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Novel version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 4 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:PFC Olexandria 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) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PFC Olexandria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 4 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:TNO dwarf planet candidates 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 move to Dwarf planet candidates, then redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TNO dwarf planet candidates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template blanked. if we need to keep this for attribution, then we can move it to a subpage of the article/talk page and redirect it. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 4 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:Poptime 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) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 4 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:Piped link 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) 03:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Piped link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 4 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:PTon 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) 03:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PTon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PToff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

of limited use and redundant to {{strong|{{purple|...}}}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 4 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:Nln 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) 03:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 4 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:RPOTD image 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) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

all the RPOTD stuff was userfied and this one is no longer needed Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 4 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:Prerequisites header 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) 03:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prerequisites header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prerequisites footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these into {{prerequisites sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 4 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:Novels-list-entry 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) 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Novels-list-entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Novels-list-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Novels-list-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 4 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:SA xxx 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 for now, assuming they will now be used. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SA Cen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Gle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA NA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Nor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA PA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Sou (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Stu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Wes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA Woo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA WT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SA WWT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused outside of userspace. could be easily substituted and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep all. They are the SANFL equivalents to the very commonly used AFL set (ie {{AFL Ade}}) of short cut templates. Much easier to write than Glenelg. I didn't know these existed, so I'll definitely use them now that I know what they are. I sometimes subst the AFL ones, so frequency of usage may not be obvious. The-Pope (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like The-Pope I was unaware these had been created, but now that I know of their existence I will begin using them. Worth noting that the WAFL, a roughly equivalent league to the SANFL, has a set of templates like this that are often used (e.g. {{WAFL Per}}). Jenks24 (talk) 23:10, 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:BLP IMDb refimprove 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP IMDb refimprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see tons of reasons why this template should be deleted:

  • This template has never been used properly. Its always been used on technically unreferenced BLPs such as this.
  • It is technically redundant to Template:Unreliable sources, and I have successfully merged it's film cousin to there without any opposition.
  • Several arguments in the last TFD, such as "Well, it would make it harder to tell why IMDb isn't a reliable source" are inadequate and misrepresent policy.

Put it all together and you have a great reason to delete this template. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be deleted: Template:Film IMDb refimprove

C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you wish to address the technical redundancy by editing the generic templates to have an imdb=yes option, I'm okay with that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it's probably better just to merge this, then. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was better, I said it was okay. And the merge would be a pretty big task - we'd need to task a bot to change all 4000-some transclusions to something like {{Unreliable sources|imdb=yes}} which is way more effort than just creating a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And having imdb=yes in the template means that not only does the imdb is unreliable text show, but also that it appears in the proper categories. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How, exactly does this template misrepresent policy. No one answered that in the last discussion either. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This keep coming up and it keeps being kept. It is a perfectly fine template when only IMDb is being used. The Sachi Matsumoto example given in the nomination is wrong. There were two sources given, therefore the article is not unsourced. A BLP unsourced tag requires no sources. You can't BLPprod the article as it does contain an unreliable ref. Nobody adds parameters to templates as it is, so merging it becomes useless. There is no reason to delete. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Policy around WP is very inconsistent about precisely what "unsourced" means for the purposes of different processes, which, yes, we all find a but annoying, but the documentation of this Template precisely fits the situation the nominator claims as evidence of a bad usage. The problem isn't this template, the problem is our generally confusing use of language within policy. --joe deckertalk to me 06:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not to be a copycat, but I agree entirely with Bgwhite's statements - the template does what it says it does, and is useful for those such scenarios! Theopolisme TALK 15:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB sucks for references for obvious reasons. Good template to have. Doc talk 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bgwhite. The template serves a valuable function and provides a high-visibility link the page explaining to the editor exactly what information from IMDb should be avoided. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until people stop using IMDB as an inline reference, this template will never go away. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This template was created and has been used as part of an effort to pretend that the unreferenced BLP problem is smaller than it actually is. As the nominator points out, the main use of this template is to exclude BLPs which contain no actual references, just a generic, too often unchecked, IMDB link in the "See also" section, from the unsourced/unreferenced category. This was a really bad idea, snuck through as a policy change during a Xmas/New Year period with minimal discussion and no genuine consensus, whose proponents have just dug in their heels and refused to meaningfully discuss. We need more tools to solve BLP problems, and fewer excuses to ignore them! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Obvious would like to point out that there is a huge difference between zero references and one possibly unreliable one. Your argument seems to be implying either that an unreliable reference doesn't count (so why single out IMDB) or that putting it in external links means it's no a reference (inherently ridiculous) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Obvious seems to have a problem understanding plain English. External links and "See also" links are not references, and the treatment of them as references for purposes of the BLP-unreferenced template is inconsistent with general practice. What's "inherently ridiculous" is making it harder to categorize BLPs as unreferenced than other subjects, but that's what Mr Obvious (and his pal Mr Oblivious) are defending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`
Then I can go thru the articles and change the heading from "external links" to "references" and now it's referenced. That's a rather obvious inference from what you said. We're not a bureaucracy, meaning we don't call articles unreferenced because they put their reference in the wrong place (especially when written by new editors who don't know where to put references). A references under a heading called "external links" is still a reference, we shouldn't accuse new editors of creating unreferenced articles because they used the wrong heading. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We need more tools to solve BLP problems, and fewer excuses to ignore them!" - Read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons#Moving Forward and note what they suggest doing next, then ask yourself how they would do it if this template was deleted and replaced with a generic one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:10, 11 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:Trout 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. Not a snowball's chance of this being deleted. Also an extremely bad-faith nomination, explicitly stated by the nominator to be retaliation for it being used on them. The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a useless template that doesn't add anything at all. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the creator of this template should be whacked with a, well, wait a second. JJB 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. It's a barnstar-like template that has been used regularly in the past, with an established history both on IRC and here. See also WP:WikiTrout. (Also note the editor who nominated this only did so after I trouted them myself. Seems like a bit of an overreaction.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on this revision, me trouting them may literally be the only reason they're nominating it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down the mightiest tree in the forest, oh wait that's a haddock--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people sent to trout the trouters, have been trouted Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? You're going to nominate a long standing user adjustment template because you were smacked with it? User needs to take a holiday and find their wiki-purpose. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It can be misused (that's not a comment on the particular use that instigated this nomination), but that's no reason to delete it. Peacock (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominating the template shortly after you've received it is not the best approach... --Ckatzchatspy 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's user page describes an intent to run for adminship in the future. It would behoove him to become familiar with the history and culture around here, and accept his trouting in the good spirit it was intended, rather than react by proposing a long-standing template for deletion. It gives the appearance of operating in bad faith. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused with Cod throwing.


Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example edit


Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
to C3F2k for nominating this for deletion. Note: template was substituted in the unlikely event it gets deleted. And I realize the irony of using a template in a discussion of its own deletion, it's, like, totally meta, dude. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was the reason I nominated it for deletion, so you're just asking for trouble. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:45, 4 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:Brutalist apartment blocks in Sheffield 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) 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brutalist apartment blocks in Sheffield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All navigation links lead to the same article. WOSlinker (talk) 17:38, 4 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:Unformatted subpage 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) 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unformatted subpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this template is basically pointless. it is much easier to just type {{/subpage}} compared to {{unformatted subpage|subpage}}. of course, neither will work if the page is transcluded in another page, which is probably why it is not currently in use. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:17, 4 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:Show by date 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Show by date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template's sole purpose for existence is to thwart WP:DATED and WP:CRYSTAL: found only 14 times in mainspace, every single time providing a masquerade of certainty for an event the editor believes will probably happen (now edited out every single time by me). Template allows such brilliancies of grammar as "2015: In 2012, Screen Digest predicted that almost all cinema screens worldwide were converted to digital." and "This is a list of notable events that will relate to the environment in 2016." Plenty of other time-based templates already without encouraging sloppy and predictive writing. JJB 13:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • keep, but wrap in a {{main other}} to prevent it from being used in articles. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Active template which does not meet any of the WP:TFD#REASONS for deletion. Thwarting WP:DATED is actually a good thing, WP needs to control the cases of future-tensed statements going stale. At least some of the nominator's edits to remove the template run contrary to WP:DATED. The template is a practical tool which will automagically handle events which are virtually certain to occur, one which helps control errors in prose (more advanced than something like {{update after}} which only tags an item over time and requires extra manual actions). The template is cleaned up by bot, therefore citing apparent low levels of current usage is misleading. At best a fundamentally flawed WP:BATHWATER deletion request. Dl2000 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does not violate crystal ball, which explicitly permits scheduled and reliably-sourced predicted events. Bad copy (screens worldwide were converted) can be correct by using this template a second time to print "would be" for now and "were" in 2015. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is "thwarting WP:DATED" a bad thing? And I think the nominator needs to more carefully read WP:CRYSTAL, particularly the part about "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is [...] almost certain to take place" (emphasis mine). The entire point of this template is to be able to make statements about things such as election results or appointments to high-level positions that take effect at a future date so we don't have to have someone remember to run around a month later and change all the "will take office on $DATE" to "took office on $DATE". While I agree with several of the nominator's removals of this template from mainspace, some are questionable; for example, in this edit a statement that an album is scheduled for release in June was changed to "was to be released in June", which makes little sense since it is currently June and the release still seems to be scheduled. The proper action there would have been to clean up the text as I did to make it so it is accurate now and will not be inaccurate come July. Anomie⚔ 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both statements "will happen" and "happened" fail verifiability and should not be encouraged. The statement "was scheduled to happen" (or "has been scheduled") is verifiable as the scheduling happened sometime prior to the edit; it's also not dated because after it happens (if), it's still true it was scheduled to happen then. Thus the reasons for deletion are rare use and compliance problems. I recognize a slight bit of userspace reliance that would be thrown out that looked negligible to me (user pages are not required to be anniversary-observing Google Doodles). While the keepers seem somewhat persuasive prima facie, I don't think they address the V problem of the unverifiable speculative "later" text, nor of the template's encouragement of sloppy writing about the future tense in the "now" text.
Further, from the standpoint of WP:INLINE standardization, inline templates are either temporary tags to be removed by a human fixer, or permanent notes that should remain. This template is neither and calls for WP to contain Tickle-Me-Elmo time-bomb-style text that the writer need not stick around to Verify when it goes live. Believe this should be roundly discouraged. While I didn't like the IP's suggestion of adding a "main other" to the template code, it might be a reasonable compromise for the sake of V. JJB 19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful template for adding or removing text from virtually certain future events. Barry Wom (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barry, events that are "virtually certain" enough are, as a rule, watched enough so that when the changeover occurs a watcher can make the edit necessary, giving a verification trail rather than having the changeover occur automatically and less accountably. I would be willing to wrap the template and only use it outside of mainspace, but nobody is explaining to me how this satisfies verifiability when it relies on no source for the past-tense statement. For V we should always say "was scheduled to occur" rather than "occurred" when no RS exists saying the latter. Alternative to wrapping for mainspace, we could make sure the "citation needed" always appears in the "future" text so that (even if bot-fixed) there would still be a satisfaction of the V burden. JJB 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
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:Bartlesville PS 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) 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bartlesville PS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink, doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 12:59, 4 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.

ISO date 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 speedy delete under WP:T3: no longer used, not likely to be needed & redundant to the #time parser function (& in part to {{date}}). JIMp talk·cont 03:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTWEEKDATE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTISODATE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTISOWEEK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTISOWEEKDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDATE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOYEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDATE2YMD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDATE2D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDATE2M (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ISOWEEKDATE2Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WEEKDATE2Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WEEKDATE2M (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WEEKDATE2D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are used only on a couple of talk pages, on a few user pages and on each other. Some of them were used by {{ISOCALENDAR}} but that template has been rewritten using the #time parser function. All of them are redundant to the #time parser function. They can be deleted. JIMp talk·cont 11:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not to {{ISOCALENDAR}} but to various #time parser functions. The connexion between these and {{ISOCALENDAR}} is now severed. A painless migration, I think, would be possible, yes. First replace the convoluted code in these templates with the appropriate parser function (some of this is already done) then go and subst. I dunno, I feel like I'm intruding if I go and edit other user's page but I guess it's probably better than just leaving a red link. JIMp talk·cont 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As someone who routinely messes with other folks' userspace, I've found that people rarely object if the change is purely technical in nature. Changing the way a date is calculated is not going to upset many people IMO, so long as it gives the same result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete but I'm not doing the migration. JJB 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • delete, now obsolete. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The migration is done. The templates are now only transcluded on each other's doc pages and on the creator's user pages. In each case they're only used as examples. They can now be deleted. JIMp talk·cont 05:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These used to be a tangle of one calling another until you hit one of the final ones with its huge algorithm. Using the #time parser function instead gives us a huge saving of code. Are they worth fixing? Note that {{date}} accepts ISO week date format input (as a single parameter) & could easily enough be adjusted to output it too but there's hardly any use for this as was evident by their almost complete disuse. They used to form the basis of {{ISOCALENDAR}} but that was rewritten using the #time parser function. After that rewrite there were very few instances where they were usefully employed. All of these uses have now been replaced with #time parser functions. JIMp talk·cont 03:48, 6 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:Membership 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, or at least no consensus to delete. There's not enough discussion here about renaming to determine a consensus. T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 25. I abstain. Please note that I only restored Template:Membership and Wikipedia:International membership templates because I don't know a good way to batch-undelete pages, and in case this TfD ends in "delete," we don't want to go to the extra work of having to undelete hundreds of pages only to delete them a week later. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've yet to see an explanation for why this is a compelling alternative to the already-existing prose in the articles that it's presumable designed to be transcluded in, and the present implementation (another ~200 sub-templates to maintain) goes against that. The author stated in the DRV that a more elegant implementation is predicated on the completion of some back-end MediaWiki stuff which hasn't been completed yet, let alone deployed on en-WP. It is not obvious to me what advantage we gain by undeleting 150 templates which aren't actually going to get used on articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you provide time that can be given to you, undeletion isn't even complete for me to demonstrate anything. These templates will be used in articles once they are ready. I just do not want to force half-baked templates into article namespace.
  • What will you gain by deleting them in the fist place? You are not saving hard drive space. Most of the templates (individual country templates) will not be changed at all once the needed MediaWiki features are added. Templates can be prepared for the deployment in advance as this alone takes significant amount of time.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't keep just what is required to prototype the system, then, rather than having to keep every possible permutation. I still think this is a solution looking for a problem, but I'd like to be convinced otherwise without feeling that the implementation is being used fait accompli to require its eventual deployment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is gathering the details on actual dates of membership is time consuming. This can be conducted while waiting for the MediaWiki implementations. Most of the templates holds membership dates for individual countries which is just the data which would not be changed too much (if at all) when MediaWiki is updated. The actual template mechanic uses a handful of templates (IIRC about 7) which would be updated with new implementations of MediaWiki. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You can see User:とある白い猫/sandbox a sample of the template series usage. First you will see the list-type usage and then the Infobox type usage. Infobox type usage is half-baked but it would be integrated into the template once the templates are complete. Both types of usage uses the same data. Infobox-type usage can be deployed earlier than the MediaWiki updates needed for the list. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd far rather that the infobox version be worked on and the other abandoned, as it strongly goes against our recommendations on use of icons for data. And I'm still seriously concerned that such a relatively small amount of information requires such a complicated template system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated before, this template isn't complete, appearance can be changed drastically with discussion. I had to create the infobox feature (using existing data) quickly due to this TFD. If your issue is icons that can be dealt with later. That said, we use icons all the time (such as through the use of {{Flag}} or  NATO).
  • This isn't a complex template system as the actual use of the template however is very simple. {{Flag}} can be considered as an even more complicated series of templates but I'd still consider it simple given its ease use. Complications are only there to allow additional optional historic usage (like template Flag). Furthermore templates scope extends beyond infoboxes. Furthermore the complexities in the code is due to how limited parser functions are. For instance to check to see if a date is in between two date ranges, one needs to to use a nested if structure which is painful to look at even by me. With Lua this problem will be resolved and the cumbersome nested ifs and templates will become mere few lines of code. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It really isn't a small amount of information. International relationship of some countries are particularly complex. For instance some countries left membership of organizations at a certain point or others that negotiated membership for an extended period of time (such as Russia with WTO). This is helpful particularly to articles on diplomatic relations.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The examples produced by A Certain White Cat above show that this is a great template, and should appear on every country article, and maybe some non-country or kinda-country articles (yes, even Azawad and South Ossetia). I would drop the date column from the table and instead put the date in prose above the table ("These memberships are as of date"), and any other discussions as to what organizations to include can continue on the talk page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, the date column on the list is intended for historic articles. For instance you would see the affiliations of the countries that participated in a historic event. For instance consider Korean War and the affiliations of the countries that had participated. Or modern conflicts like the NATO Areal Operation in Libya where non-NATO member countries also participated. The actual date column can be dropped later on (once template is complete) of course. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename rename to Template:International membership per concerns at DRV and the last TFD, "membership" is highly ambiguous, and ambiguous templates are frequently renamed, so since this template system is not even in use yet, it should use a better name. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TfD is not the correct venue for rename requests. You can propose it if the templates are kept. You should have done this from the beginning but you preferred nominating all the templates for deletion instead. One problem at a time please. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Templates have been many times renamed during a TFD, it is "templates for discussion". If the choice is to keep a badly named template and deleting it, the delete as an extremely ambiguously named template with no indication of its purpose, and the template is unused. But, as renaming is an available choice, I don't see why it cannot be brought up in the discussion. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rename is not the purpose of TFDs. If you JUST requested a rename you would have saved everyone a lot of time. Please consider this option before a TFD in the future. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
          • At the first TFD, the template was unused, and per findings on its talk page, the course indicated was deletion was best. So, TFD is the route to use to delete the template, as findings on its talk page by Zzyzx11. Since this TFD is open, a rename is a perfectly reasonable outcome, since I did not open this TFD. However, per Chris above, and per Zzyzx11 from the deleted talk page, I see no reason not to delete the template either, since it is unused, complex, and a product looking for a problem. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, template was used on various talk pages and Wikipedia namespace. Using TFDs to seek renames is wasting peoples time. Rename is a simple editorial decision. "Rename or delete" argument is lame. I merely asked you to talk to template creators rather than nominate their work for deletion on the spot. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
              • If it was so simple to rename it, you wouldn't be saying it was extremely hard to rename it. So delete is easier than rename according to your statements on how hard renaming is, which you say is simple, but if it's simple, it shouldn't be hard to rename it. Delete and be done with it, there's no logic that applies to your position on renaming being both a simple decision and a hard decision. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It requires the careful modification of every template. It isn't something simple to rename over 100 templates. It is also not easy to re-create over 100 templates. If you do not understand how templates work perhaps you shouldn't comment on how simple it is to rename them or update them or create them. Also I do not agree with your rename suggestion. It should be a separate discussion. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Update I've changed my opinion to Delete as Chris 's opinion has swayed me, and that White Cat does not see any potential problems in rolling out this system or its ambiguous naming. It would be better if this is not rolled out, since it is a complex system of many templates looking for an issue to use it in, that is deliberately named in a highly ambiguous manner to engender confusion. If however, this is kept, then it should still be renamed to Template:International membership -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename of the template page should be done with great care as otherwise the entire template structure will be broken. You cannot single handedly decide on the template name like this. Just propose a rename if it is kept. Why is that so hard? I want to see an independent discussion on the rename as I am not sure if "International membership" is a good name for the template range. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The template system is unused and yet to be rolled out yet you still object to renaming it? There should be no problem renaming a template system that is yet to be used. Delete it and start over if it is such a problem. Chris' comments saying that the system is overly complex is borne out by your reply. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I am. Your attitude is disturbing. Do not order me around. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment if this template is deleted, this name should be salted as too ambiguous to use properly, since it can most easily be used to refer to memberships of people or the mathematical concepts of membership, and so is unclear. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might as well oversight it while at it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment if it is renamed, the current name should also be salted. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why need salt? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I've already said why. Highly ambiguous names should not be used for templates, they should indicate what they are for. Ambiguously named templates keep coming up for renaming, some are even rewritten by some editors because they think it should be for Topic X and not Topic Y, or are being used improperly for topics that share the same name. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you propose will break the template beyond operable. The name was selected after a lot of careful considerations that includes the intention to avoid unwanted controversy. I do not want the template name to be determined by an IP who either wants it renamed or deleted. This should be a separate discussion should this be closed as keep. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - per There is no deadline. I offered a rename suggestion in the DRV (international membership), which should address the deletion concern(s). The past is past, and at this point, I'm just looking toward a way forward. - jc37 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per above. This is an obviously very useful template when it finally gets finished.
<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:36, 16 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:CURRENTCALENDAR 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 speedy delete under WP:T3. JIMp talk·cont 04:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{CURRENTCALENDAR}} was formerly an instance of {{ISOCALENDAR}} hard-coded to give the current month. {{ISOCALENDAR}} now defaults to the current month (whereas it formerly defaulted to giving a table full of error messages). Both former main-space transculsions (yes, there were only two) have been switched over to {{ISOCALENDAR}}. It is still used on user pages & talk pages though. This template is redundant but for a couple of dozen transclusions on user pages (plus a talk page or two) it could be deleted under WP:T3. Let users switch to {{ISOCALENDAR}} & delete. JIMp talk·cont 08:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the user pages can be painlessly transitioned to {{ISOCALENDAR}} then that should be done as part of the close. I'd have been happy enough for this to be T3ed in that case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they can be, just swap {{CURRENTCALENDAR}} for {{ISOCALENDAR}}. I just didn't want to intrude by editing someone else's page. JIMp talk·cont 11:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is one transclusion left on a user page at the top of which there is a clear message that the user doesn't want his/her page tampered with. I left him/her a message that this template is to be deleted and suggested he/she use {{ISOCALENDAR}}. I think that this can thus be closed under T3. JIMp talk·cont 04:28, 5 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:Rudimental 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) 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too soon. Links to one song that's theirs and another that they just remixed.StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:53, 4 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 12 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) 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two seconds of inspection shows that this infobox contains a significant number of parameters that {{infobox organisation}} doesn't support and which wouldn't be added to it. So it isn't redundant. The code needs some cleanup but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am confused the template has been questioned by Kasper in moderator forums and got supported without my intervention as it creator. Considering the number of national sports federations were talking over 1000 on wikipedia having a specifically designed template seems to make sense. I have some new coding for it using hlist now I know better but this is a seperate issue and maybe Chris can help. (talk) 20:05, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_4&oldid=1136066851"