Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10 edit

Template:Ustatus 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) 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be currently pointless, since the bot that updates the status is not active. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Initially thought to "keep" since it's used on a number of userpages. But considering the bot's status, I think it's good to go. Reh man 01:29, 11 December 2010 (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:Ivy League MLB All-Stars 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) 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ivy League MLB All-Stars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems unnecessary to me. There is no page for List of Ivy League Major League Baseball All-Stars, and nor should there be. Why do we have to link these six individuals together based on a coincidence? Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are six individuals linked by common achievement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent Seems fine for now, but lets just hope there aren't any more, since the separate column formatting is going to be unsustainable :) 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tony. Notable intersection (see here and here and here). I do not view this by any means as "coincidence".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EMBED that links in navigational aids should already be included in an ideal version of the page the box is being used on. Most of the players in this box would not already be included on the pages of the other players in the navbox. Trivial linkage and navbox cruft. -DJSasso (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unbelievably trivial intersection. People who both went to an Ivy League school and were MLB All-Stars? Two topics that are as unrelated as it gets. I'm looking forward to the creation of {{Major League third basemen who attended middle school in Oklahoma}} though. Reso lute 00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intersection of two unrelated traits. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never understood the point of these templates, they are unnecessary.--Yankees10 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This format would become unwieldy if just three or four more players should meet the criteria. One wonders how this format would work with conferences that have had many more major league players such as the SEC. There would be no reason to restrict this to just one conference if this one is approved setting a precedent. This would work better as a list page with a nice table and photos. Each of the players could have a see also direct to the list. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's trivial. We don't do it for other conferences, so why this one? DC T•C 16:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In fact we want to avoid a precedence so these don't get started for other conferences. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely trivial intersection. — KV5 • Talk • 20:22, 13 December 2010 (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:Supervisedpage and Template:Pagealsosupervised 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) 01:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only used on failed proposal at Wikipedia:Experimental vandalism protection. Substitute and then delete. WOSlinker (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aaron Schulz 21:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:30, 11 December 2010 (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:Differences between turtles, tortoises and terrapins 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Differences between turtles, tortoises and terrapins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused since February 2010. Former templatification of article text. The three articles now read differently, to focus on each term in particular. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. This isn't a template, it's an old article - shouldn't be in template space. Mhiji (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Reh man 01:31, 11 December 2010 (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:Arab-African Super Cup 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arab-African Super Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with no blue links for a never-played competition whose own article was recently deleted. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. All red links. Useless. Mhiji (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, unnecessary. All links are red. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all reds. Reh man 01:32, 11 December 2010 (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:Humanities 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, given the sheer size of the category. If someone wants to create a more targeted version, perhaps as a footer navigation box, go right ahead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template's subject matter is bound to be unwieldy. Everything related to history and politics in a sub-heading? Everything in the visual and performing arts? A third of Wikipedia would end up with this on it. It will not be an aid to navigation. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Far too broad to be useful. Mhiji (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Humanities is a broad concept, but important in discussions on education and funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.75.0 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure. A simplified box would be acceptable, one that only contained links to the main articles it presents as top categories: law, visual- and performing arts, literature, history and politics and philosophy and religion and no more. Trying to fit in all undercategories will indeed eventually bloat the thing beyond any useful purpose. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too broad to be covered in a single navigational template. Suitable as a category (Category:Humanities), where readers can browse the subcategories, but not as a template. Robofish (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (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:FIFA World Cup 2022 Qualifiers 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. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FIFA World Cup 2022 Qualifiers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too early to have a template for the qualification to an event which will occur in 2022, see also WP:CRYSTAL. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with you, even if I created it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:48, 10 December 2010 (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:Round Maple 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round Maple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Round maple is a tiny hamlet of dubious notability in itself. The buildings and woods listed on this template are also not notable, and only redirect to the main article. Serves no purpose whatsoever. Quantpole (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill hamlet with a population of 20 and little notability does not require a template. Besides which, all content is either a redirect to Round Maple or to an article that looks highly likely to be deleted. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only four real articles aside from the main article, and two redirects to the main article. All four articles are up for deletion. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Three of these have been deleted by AfD. This template now contains a single article, which is still up for deletion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and that article has also been deleted. Template now contains 0 (non-redirect) links. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (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:Johnny Depp 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johnny Depp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No other actor has a navbox that is dumped on every article of films they star in. I think this is a little too much... —Mike Allen 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries. Mhiji (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reso lute 00:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per multiple previous discussions. Lugnuts (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looks to have been this editors only effort here. I guess we are lucky that Depp hasn't done commercials or this thing might be twice its size. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:09, 16 December 2010 (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.