Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

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. abandoned. Salix (talk): 12:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This template is unused except for one userpage and hasn't been updated since mid-2009. Since the UConn Huskies men's basketball depth chart will constantly change, it will be difficult to keep up to date. Also, may constitute original research as it does not cite any sources. –Grondemar 23:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, useless and abandoned. Imzadi 1979 → 08:06, 31 July 2010 (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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Used for references but actually links to an advertisement. Possibly could be salvaged? Half Price (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of articles use this template as a ref for population of Azerbaijan municipalities, so we need to be careful. It's possible the DNS is just temporarily screwed up, leading to a placeholder ad, but if not, possibly this should remain in place with some kind of dead link notice? Station1 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment the link from the template says: "This domain may be for sale. Buy this Domain" which leads me to believe that the site has, at least temporarily, gone dead. Tag it with {{dead link}} for now, and revisit the issue in a few weeks to see if the site has come back or not. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Either the link needs to be retargeted to the correct page, or the template needs to be "gracefully" taken out of commission. Perhaps just getting rid of the link and changing it to plain text would do the trick, so that a lot of articles don't end up with a template redlink. SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:39, 11 August 2010 (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.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

General consensus at WP:FOOTY is that squad navboxes should be retained only for clubs' current squads and senior national team World Cup and confederational (sp?) cup squads. – Pee Jay 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, and also {{England U21 Squad Euro 2009}} — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Question Does it not count as notable? It's Malpass ⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Could you provide a link to specifically where on WP:FOOTY this has been discussed? SnottyWong ^spout 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't remember any specific conversations, and I don't have time to sift through the WT:FOOTY archives, but I know for certain that past TfD discussions have reached this same consensus. – Pee Jay 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I find no record of such consensus. Although I might be seen as biased, I oppose the move. It's Malpass ⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (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.

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. —fetch ·comms 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates for suggested merger of this template and Template:Nn-warn have been up for a week. Through the discussion, at Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template, all presently existing uses of this template have been disposed of by creating alternatives (see the discussion). No comments have been received suggesting further uses for this template. Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, orphaned and made redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 08:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete redundant and unnecessary. SnottyWong ^express 17:10, 11 August 2010 (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.

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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by User:Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 11:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant advertising, links to nothing, linked by nothing, etc, etc. EmanWilm (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11—I have tagged the template accordingly. –Grondemar 06:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete: will an admin hit the button already? Imzadi 1979 → 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted - this took a while to get to as I started deleting backwards from Z 10 hours ago. Could some one who knows how, close this please? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2010 (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.

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 changes now incorperated into Template:Uw-tpv1--Salix (talk): 19:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This template has been replaced by the standardized UW template Template:uw-tpv1 in furtherance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Redundant; the uw template is more standard and supported by Twinkle. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep—the two templates don't appear to have the same purpose. Uw-tpv1 talks about removing or editing other people's talk page posts, while Notyours addresses more minor spelling and grammar corrections. I believe both can be useful in specific situations, and therefore Uw-tpv1 does not fully supersede Notyours. –Grondemar 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Template:Uw-tpv1 includes in its message "even if you meant well", which was intended to concisely refer to things like minor spelling and grammar corrections. Actually, I can't think of any other types of changes with which a user might mean well (act in good faith). (Well, I can think of one: a user accidentally modifying a talk page comment; but neither template seems to address this probably very rare situation.) Level 1 standardized user warnings are only to be applied to users who acted in good faith, albeit wrongly. If we can't think of any other type of good faith edit to a talk page comment besides that which is the subject of Template:Notyours, spelling and grammar corrections, would you consider, as an alternative to keeping Template:Notyours, merging it into Template:Uw-tpv1? I would invite you to propose any changes to Template:Uw-tpv1 on its talk page. Alternatively, if I might press you further, can you give an example of a situation when you would personally use Template:Uw-tpv1 instead of Template:Notyours? (If it's just a matter of whether the edits are minor or major spelling and grammar corrections, we can probably take care of that on a merged template with a parser function.) Thanks for your indulgence! Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me consider the comments above and I will reply further. –Grondemar 06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the following sentence to Template:Uw-tpv1: "Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." If that sentence is incorporated in the user warning, I would agree that Template:Notyours can be deleted. –Grondemar 19:04, 7 August 2010 (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.

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) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply makes a link to a Commons category... which you could just type out manually. Unused. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke it. Subst and delete. Imzadi 1979 → 19:32, 7 August 2010 (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.

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 keep. Upon the "uw" templates' introduction (and on many subsequent occasions), it was agreed that the legacy templates would be retained for those who wish to use them. Their existence causes no harm, and their deletion would be highly disruptive for those accustomed to their nomenclature. —David Levy 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This template has been replaced by the standardized UW template Template:uw-test1 in furtherance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Bsherr (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2010 (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.

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. redundant. Salix (talk): 12:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unused: deprecated to {{Infobox cyclist}}. Severo^TC 09:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete as T3 eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 31 July 2010 (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.

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. redundant. Salix (talk): 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated by {{Infobox cyclist}}. Severo^TC 08:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 31 July 2010 (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.

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. Now reformatted. Salix (talk): 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes shouldn't consist of lists; this template is literally a transclusion of a list article. Consider replacing with a WP:Succession box. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep - A navigational template that lists past and present holders of an office is useful. Is the concern about the layout of the template? Maybe it could be improved, although there is no hard standard. E.g. Template:Governors of New Jersey, Template:Monarchs of Denmark or Template:Heads of state of Greece. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Reformat/replace, the nominator is right, it shouldn't transclude a list article. Either convert it to a proper navbox, or replace it with a succession box. Either is better than what there is now. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled. It is reasonable to have a navigational template that lets readers easily skip from an article to related articles. This is typical of articles on governors of US states, for example. Deletion certainly does not seem warranted. As for format, I have cut down what is transcluded, but think what is left is easy to follow and useful. From a reader's viewpoint, what is wrong with it? Surely it is useful? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Lists and templates each have purposes, but they should be made independently. The template should be compact as possible, and just give the names in chronological order. The list is where the rest of the information goes, and should be there only. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have given the template a more compact format: the names in sequence grouped by regime, similar to Template:Heads of state of Greece. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2010 (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.

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. fork of other template. Salix (talk): 13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A complete fork of {{KentuckyWildcatsFootballnavbox}}. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and replace with the other template. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 July 2010 (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.

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. Not notable, copyvio problems. Salix (talk): 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Came across this template through a block request at WP:AIV. It had been added to multiple articles, and reverted by multiple different users. Context is available at this discussion. The template is intended to function like {{imdb title}} or {{rotten-tomatoes}}, but this fails our external links policy on many grounds. The website it links to is in beta testing and appears to have a tiny catalogue of entries so it does not appear to provide "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Its tagging content is all public user generated as best I can make out, and the way this template was being used appeared to have been blatant promotion for the website. More critically, upon studying just one entry, for Back to the Future, the blurb at the website appeared to be copyright violating plagiarism of this site. We do not link to external sites that violate others' copyright. So in sum, I think retaining a template that places links to an external cite that has no use anywhere on Wikipedia is a bad idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable, poor quality control, and definitely no websites that copyvio. Cresix (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Cresix. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 July 2010 (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.

options

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 30

[edit] July 30

[edit] Template:UConn Huskies depth chart

[edit] Template:TCSC

[edit] Template:England U21 Squad Euro 2007

[edit] Template:Nn-warn-reason

[edit] Template:Dc-web

[edit] Template:Notyours

[edit] Template:Cc

[edit] Legacy "test" templates [multiple listings combined]

[edit] Template:Infobox Olympic Cyclist

[edit] Template:Infobox supplemental cyclist

[edit] Template:GongolaStateGovernors

[edit] Template:KentuckyWildcatsFootball

[edit] Template:VidTaggr movie