Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19 edit

Template:Syracuse basketball 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) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syracuse basketball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unlike with some pro teams, "current roster" templates not used in college basketball - the majority of NCAA basketball players are not notable and these templates encourage the creation of articles for non-notable people. Current roster should reside on the season page for this team. Keep in mind the purpose of templates is to navigate articles of notable people. Rikster2 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such roster templates are bad at all levels as an athlete's teammates at any given moment in time is not defining of that individual. Reso lute 05:20, 26 September 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:Illinois Fighting Illini current roster 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) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illinois Fighting Illini current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unlike with some pro teams, "current roster" templates not used in college basketball - the majority of NCAA basketball players are not notable and these templates encourage the creation of articles for non-notable people. Current roster should reside on the season page for this team. Rikster2 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty rare that every player on a college team will be considered notable. A few of these articles have already gone to AFD, and were deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 05:15, 25 September 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:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball players 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) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Random collection of basketball players from a school with no objective reason for inclusion. A category exists for this subject, and it goes against Wikipedia:College Basketball use of templates. This could be acceptable if it were Illini retired/honored jerseys but not as is Rikster2 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by nom. Would also like to add that I think that even if it were an Honored or Retired Jerseys template, it should still be deleted because I don't think that's worthy either. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really needed. The category is fine. Zagalejo^^^ 05:16, 25 September 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:Infobox Warsaw 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) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Warsaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 18 transclusions. Redundant to and replaceable with {{Infobox settlement}}. PC78 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to promote standardization. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to promote standardization. - Darwinek (talk) 11:02, 26 September 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:Nationfilmlist 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) 00:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flawed and redundant navtemplate. If it's not just spitting out redlinks (such as at Cinema of Nepal) it's redundant to various "Cinema of..." footer templates (e.g. at List of Afghan films or List of Icelandic films. Better to use one of the existing country-specific templates, or no template at all if there are insufficient links to make one viable. PC78 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 23 September 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:Infobox The Office season 1 episode list 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 as G7. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Office season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I made this template, and only later realized that a similarly named one had already been deleted. Right now, it is redundant, due to the template found at the bottom of each episode page. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just put {{db-author}} on it.~~ Done. Close as speedy deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 19 September 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:Infobox Luxembourg commune 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 to {{Infobox commune}} and then redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Luxembourg commune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Redundant to Template:Infobox commune (settlement). Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is used for all of Luxembourg's communes, and has two fields that are not included in the other template: rank by min and max elevation. Furthermore, due to the look-up functionality of the template, it is considerably easier to change the data using the Luxembourg specific template. Unless you want to create a bot, which I'd be 100% in favour of. Bastin 11:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Note Bastin is the template creator. Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Communes in Luxembourg are an administrative subdivision of the country, not a settlement. They should be treated accordingly. Europe presently has 27 such templates. See Category:Europe country subdivision infobox templates. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - per below. --Bsherr (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge if the additional parameters have any genuine value) and replace with the standard template, which is more than adequate for this purpose. PC78 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be what? This is the administrative level above settlements. --Bsherr (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{Infobox settlement}}, or the redirect {{Infobox commune}} if it suits you better. The template doc makes it clear that it is meant for any subdivision below the level of a country, so let's not get caught up in semantics. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can't replace it, because it doesn't have the same fields. By adopting that change, you're destroying data for the user that's been on Wikipedia for four years, and making the syntax longer for editors, to achieve... nothing. Bastin 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      - You're wrong. It can replace it and is does have all the required fields. No information will be lost. Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - For standardisation and to remove redundancy, not for nothing, and I don't see how the syntax would be made longer. The two parameters you mention above could easily be added to {{Infobox settlement}}. PC78 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, shouldn't you be in favor of merging instead of deleting? --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I said could, not should. I have no personal interest in adding the rankings, but if it's on the table then I'll support a merge over a keep. PC78 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Added merge to my initial comment. PC78 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with PC78. Infobox commune can replace them all, this template is redundant. NO DATA will be lost in a conversion, trust me on that one. Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps instead of relying on trust, you could explain? The current template shows high and low elevations, and ranks them. Can the ranking be accomodated in Infobox Settlement? Are you proposing merging instead of deleting? --Bsherr (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I believe so. With settlement infobox you can even cite water area, urban area etc. If I'm mistaken then I will ensure that the tmeplate is updated so nothing, I mean NOTHING will be lost in the substitution.Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you show in a sandbox how the template data would be represented, please? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to promote standardization. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any necessary missing parameters to {{Infobox commune}}, then convert, then redirect or delete. Just ping me and I will perform the conversions, unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 27 September 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:Susan B. Anthony 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 WP:NENAN. Salix (talk): 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Susan B. Anthony (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Of little use. Only four links relate tot he topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've removed the photo and trimmed it to just the most relevant links, but even with the bare minimum I think it's just about enough. PC78 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:52, 20 September 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:User Religion Is Harmful 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 decision as this is better handled by WP:MFD for userboxes or WP:RM for page moves. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Religion Is Harmful (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this MfD, the consensus was to keep the template. However, I had proposed to userfy this page, but it has since gone unnoticed, and so I thought I should bring it here where it may receive more input. What I previously said was "Keep and userfy the second template. The userboxes here were not as inflammatory as the last MfD nomination, which had specifically linked to a certain religion/sect, disparaged it, and thus was quite divisive regarding consensus on it's purpose, whereas these two were not as serious. However, considering the nature of the userboxes against some consensus, and per this MfD, the userbox should not be in template-space, as that implies a great consensus to allow the use of such userboxes anywhere. Just as user essays do not reflect a majority view and should remain in userspace, versus policies and guidelines that have clear consensus to back them up, I think that this would be the best solution." :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did notice it, but there's not enough support for it for me to close the MfD as userfy. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as out of scope - Thanks, but we cannot consider it here. Please follow directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Bsherr (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All userboxes go to MfD, regardless of namespace. See instructions at the top of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. If I'm reading the above right this is actually a move request, and move requests are handled at WP:RM. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 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.