Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1 edit

Template:Largest cities of Equatorial Guinea 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) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Equatorial Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Place with just 5400 inhabitants are no cities Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete. mabdul 08:38, 2 May 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:Largest cities of Lesotho 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, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Lesotho (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Place with just 5400 inhabitants are no cities. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete. mabdul 08:38, 2 May 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:Largest cities of Swaziland 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, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Swaziland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Places of 3400 people are no cities. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete. mabdul 08:39, 2 May 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:PanydsDYKWizardTemplate 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

only used in one user's userspace, should be userfied. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, it seems a stale project to "steal" the WP:WIZARD style and port it to DYK. Maybe ask first if they are still interested in implementing such a system (I would highly support such an idea, DYK is too complex!) mabdul 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The clue is in the name of the template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:59, 2 May 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:RefimproveMED 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 per G7. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles needing attention for MEDRS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:All articles needing attention for MEDRS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{medref}}. It had three transclusions, which I've already replaced. It does the same thing as Medref, except uses different categories and doesn't have a parameter for use in sections. — Bility (talk) 16:40, 1 May 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:Award3 edit

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Award3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Award2}} and {{Bsbox}}. mabdul 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see a way you can set {{Award2}} or {{Bsbox}} so that there is no heading text. Otherwise I have no objection; I don't even remember creating this. —Akrabbim^talk 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three Awards into one. {{Award}} , {{Award2}} , {{Award3}}. Option "|box=yes" to activated box, "title=yes" to activate title (only available in box mode) ; These should be modified to make use of {{bsbox}} ; (move the current {{award}} to {{award1}} to create new edit history for this merger). {{Bsbox}} should be modified to make "name" optional. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{bsbox}} is only 14 months old and only used by two barnstars. It would actually be better to start with {{award2}}, which has a wikitable-based codebase and rather more users at the moment. I'm working on sanitising that codebase at present, and the sandbox already supports hiding the header like {{award3}} (just don't give it a title value). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. {{award2/sandbox}} can now act as a meta-template for both {{award3}} and {{bsbox}}. As far as I'm concerned, {{award}}} can be redirected to {{barnstar}} right now and {{award2}} can be synced with {{award2/sandbox}} and moved to {{bsbox}} (with {{award3}} redirected to it). That will give us a solid foundation to (finally) begin moving barnstars to use a single master template as a base. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{award3}} is now obsolete {{award2/sandbox}};
    - {{award}}} is obsolete to {{barnstar}};
    - I added to the {{award2/sandbox}} the |alt= of the {{bsbox}} which was missed; I support the above propose redirects. (after pushing the sandbox) mabdul 15:11, 3 May 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:Cleanup-laundry 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) 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is the vague form of {{Cleanup-list}}. Both do the same thing. Fleet Command (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problme text on the two has gradually converged: it was previously quite different. Nonetheless, at present the two needlessly overlap, and {{cleanup-list}} makes a better job of explaining what the problem is so a merge there would work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there was extensive discussion on Template talk:Cleanup-laundry about this very issue. Where FleetCommand says it does the same thing as {{Cleanup-list}}, I think they should do different things, so IMHO neither deletion nor merging is merited. Until recently, this template used the term "notable" wrongly (referring to items in a list - WP:N forbids such an application) and an non-policy term "unhelpful". So they were removed, but improvement was not followed through, because nobody would discuss it. Now that you two are interested, will you please read Template talk:Cleanup-laundry, or should I just replicate that discussion here? As I stated there, "this template's goals, text, instructions for use, and application by editors are not harmonized." The same is true for Cleanup-list, by the way. Nobody knows what either of them are really for, given how scattered and improperly used they are. --Lexein (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone is willing to discuss and make it clear what the template is used for. I find this all the time. No one wants to ever discuss something, or if they do, it just goes around in circles because everyone expects everyone else to do something. I saw this with the Halifax, Nova Scotia debacle. It basically turned out like this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete. So far there has been no assertion (let alone evidence) that the articles so tagged are not in need of work, merely a claim that the use of this template is similar to another. While a merge could be possible, we need more not less distinction in describing what needs work; this is specific claim that the list is badly defined, as opposed to any type of formatting or other problem. RJFJR (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no: {{cleanup-list}} gives a "specific claim that the list is badly defined", while this just states that it may contain "unencyclopedic" articles, which is so vague as to be nearly useless. In practice these are used interchangeably and always have been. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I looked at a sample of transclusions, and all seemed to be redundant to {{cleanup-list}}. Just saying "may be unencyclopedic" is too vague. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete, it would be far better to define "encyclopedic". IMO, the second sentence (instructions to improve the articles) is the most important part of a banner. The {{cleanup-laundry}} gives specific instructions to remove the list, incorporating the useful parts into the text of the article. The {{cleanup-list}} has a vague instruction to cleanup the list. SwineFlew? (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're suggesting is that the redundant template should not be deleted, but simply rewritten to be identical to the other one? How is that an improvement over just redirecting it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:59, 30 April 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) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. mabdul 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I would differentiate this template's (original) purpose as being obscurity/lack-of-any-significance-to-understanding-the-general-topic-of-the-article of information (i.e. lack of 'noteworthiness', a term which I generally use as the material-level analog of "notability"), as opposed to verifiability or (a narrow definition of) indisciminateness. A rather more broad and robust definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE might obviate the necessity of this template, but until then I think there is a place for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly vague. If someone thinks that there are problems with entries in a list then they should tag the specific entries. If they can't be bothered to do that then they shouldn't start a guessing game instead. Warden (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument could be applied to any section banner-tag in favour of inline tagging. It thus amounts to a fallacious special pleading. Where a problem applies to a list as a whole, it is better to tag the list as a whole (and such material does appear, with near inevitability, to gravitate to such a list). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, I'd suggest merging {{List}} with {{Prose}}; those two seen redundant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 12 May 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:2005 All-Ireland Under-21 Hurling Runners-up 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) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 All-Ireland Under-21 Hurling Runners-up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Surely we don't need a navbox for an under-21 runners-up side. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 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) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar to many other navtemplates related to squads. mabdul 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I don't think we need templates like this at all. One for a U-21 side is silly. A losing U-21 side is ridiculous. Reso lute 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates for the team members at U21-level, winner or loser, is not necessary at all. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:50, 4 May 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.