Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19 edit

Template:Newtest 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) 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only on one page, Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Skomorokh, which is a subpage of a page retained for historical reference (used ~2 times on that page, so could be easily substituted). Hazard-SJ ✈ 22:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a failed process proposal Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:40, 20 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:Bridgeport Bluefish 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, all the links are section links within the article, with the exception of the link to the ballpark. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridgeport Bluefish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recommending deletion of this navbox. Only used on two articles: The Bridgeport Bluefish baseball team's and the team's ballpark. Most of the links on the template just direct to sections on the team's article; the others direct to items already easily found on the article. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 16:17, 19 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:Trivia 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) 01:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've only seen one "Trivia" header in the past couple years. As it stands, this template has 0 transclusions in article space, so the "trivia" bug has been eradicated. The last few trivia sections I've seen were actually "in popular culture" sections, for which we have {{In popular culture}} and {{examplefarm}}. With general trivia sections a thing of the past, I think it's time to get rid of the template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Wikipedia has come full circle! ;) Delete or tag as historical if it is no longer being used. Harej (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you tag it as historical, that would imply that trivia sections are once again welcome on Wikipedia. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that trivia sections are not currently in vogue doesn't mean they won't return. I see no harm in having it around. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged dozens of articles with this in the last couple of years. it is immensely heartening that we do not have a backlog in this area any more, but the problem itself certainly hasn't gone away: there are undoubtedly plenty of articles still out there which should be tagged thusly but aren't (such as the four present members of Category:All articles with trivia sections), and people will certainly continue to add them in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that there are articles with trivia sections that haven't yet been tagged as such instead of assuming "well, there must be". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to an at-the-time populated category containing pages which should have been tagged with this. Anecdotally I've seen them out there and continue to use this for tagging, so I can only suggest that if you haven't seen them that you've been lucky. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very sympathetic to TPH's argument but there are articles out there with trivia sections (I cleaned up a big walled garden of them a few months back) so I think it would be helpful to retain this. If there are zero transclusions at the moment, that's cause for temporary satisfaction rather than deletion. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Why go through the hassle to remake this template? It costs us nothing to keep it "at the ready" when needed in the future. Senator2029 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if no article on the almost 4 million Wikipedia has a trivia section (which is highly unlikely), there probably will be ones in the future. CyanGardevoir 10:27, 25 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:Original Premier League Clubs 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) 01:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original Premier League Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like an navbox too far. There is nothing particularly special about this group of clubs, as the Premier League was effectively a continuation of the Football League First Division - these 20 clubs were just those that happened to be in the top flight when the Premier League was created. (Note: this template was deleted once before, way back in 2006.) 86.164.110.70 (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced of the need to track the original Premier clubs in such a template. The majority of them were members of Division 1 the previous year, and it's not like they were specially selected for the league. Eldumpo (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{1992–93 in English football}}. —WFC— 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. Number 5 7 12:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Giant Snowman 15:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Not like the founding of the Football League where those clubs were pioneers to a certain extent.--Echetus what's stopping anyone from making Xe 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as the clubs involved were concerned, there was nothing different or new about this league from the one they were playing the season before, it just had a different name. I you are going to have this, what's stopping anyone from making "Original Championship Clubs", "Original League 1 Clubs", "Original Champions League Clubs", "Original Europa league Clubs" and so on. BUC (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adds no value and serves no useful purpose. --Brian (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - causes clutter and frankly adds little or nothing Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant template as all of those teams are already present at the Template:Premier League. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:39, 26 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.