Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2 edit

Template:MyStatus 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. delldot ∇. 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

After all of the corresponding images were deleted (File:MyStatusPlayful.png, File:MyStatusSad.png, File:MyStatusAngry.png), this template does little more than display a simple wikitable. It is largely redundant to the more advanced {{Statustop}}, {{UserStatus}}, and Category:Wikimood templates. It is currently only used on two user pages, which makes userfication a possibility as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Userfy) - really doesn't do very much, and redundant to better templates. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – other templates can do the job better. Userfy if necessary. Airplaneman ✈ 15:04, 9 June 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:Surrey Senior Cup seasons 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) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Surrey Senior Cup seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains only redlinks. Parent topic is notable but individual seasons are not. Jameboy (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no use until the articles are created. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly more redlinks than I've ever seen in a template before, and none of them ever likely to be filled. Useless in every respect. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – useless right now, and the articles linked are of questionable notability. Airplaneman ✈ 15:05, 9 June 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:Surrey Senior Cup Seasons 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) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Surrey Senior Cup Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains only redlinks. Parent topic is notable but individual seasons are not. Jameboy (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no use until the articles are created. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No blue links, and the dates given seem to contradict the parent article anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – useless until articles are created. Airplaneman ✈ 15:07, 9 June 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:Mag 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) 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with {{cite journal}}. Only special feature is that the journal is in bold. Used in two articles. If there is a prevailing reason to bold the journal, it can easily be done with {{cite journal}}:

{{mag|Cosmopolitan|The National Magazine Company|0010-9541}}

{{cite journal|work='''Cosmopolitan'''|publisher=The National Magazine Company|issn=0010-9541}}

{{mag|Cosmopolitan|The National Magazine Company|0010-9541}}

Cosmopolitan. The National Magazine Company. ISSN 0010-9541. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

-— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. further, template also uses improper formatting for display. --emerson7 19:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant, nonstandard alternative to an existing template. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – redundant to a more standard template. Airplaneman ✈ 15:08, 9 June 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:Soviet Secondary Division seasons 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) 01:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soviet Secondary Division seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template consists purely of red links Jameboy (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even Soviet Secondary Division is a redlink! I find it hard to believe that any of these articles will ever be created. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should really be a speedy criterion for redlinked navigational templates. Robofish (talk) 12:23, 7 June 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:Copyedit-section 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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyedit-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Copyedit-section with Template:Copyedit.
Too redundant, obviously; {{copyedit}} has improved with additional directions and fixed formula. Gh87 (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider merging all of the -section templates into their general templates, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or keeping them all separate - I'm not fussed, but consistency would be good. I just went through the synonyms of {{Expand section}} - and we moved all the {{Expand|section}}s there when Expand was up for deletion. Regardless the merge/split does not need to come here, if we merge them we would simply have {{Copyedit|section|otherparms passed through}}. Presuambly we would use a flag rather than a banner for the section tag? Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, consistency is the key word. And flags for the section templates seems to become the standard. So as far as this merge proposal is concerned, that would mean I am against. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Possibly merge together, so "Copyedit" becomes a flag when "section" is passed as a parameter, and this becomes an intermediate transclusion with parameter passing and a set parameter. But this template shouldn't become a bare redirect. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually like the fact that this template is smaller and less obtrusive than {{Copyedit|section}} would be. Unless that one can be made smaller when applied to sections, I support keeping it. Robofish (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Robofish. I greatly prefer the low-profile {{Copyedit-section}} over {{copyedit}}, unless {{copyedit}} can somehow change size when the "section" parameter is added to it. Airplaneman ✈ 15:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In the same way that {{expand section}} is better than {{expand|section}}, so this is better than the generic tag. It's less domineering, and makes looking through the "What links here" section of the copyedit template easier as it isn't swamped with section-only tags. It's true that we need some consistency, but that doesn't mean we should delete this. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 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.