Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12 edit

Template:Microsoft/footer 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) 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had only one transclusion at Template:Microsoft and is clearer without it. Pnm (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2011 (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:SciSummary 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) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and no potential use, we don't need article summaries as templates. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2011 (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:Longhorns Men's Basketball Retired Numbers 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) 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Longhorns Men's Basketball Retired Numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that is too specific – WP:NENAN. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are only three players on it, and the rate at which UTexas retires jerseys doesn't warrant its use. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (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:NYnojct 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) 03:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A segment of something. Purpose unclear. Unused. Unnecessary. Also delete the two redirects. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2011 (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:National football team (22 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) 03:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National football team (22 players) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A poor-man's navbox. Not used. Football squad navboxes are written out by hand, as far as I am aware. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2011 (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:Nationalanthemsofcentralamerica 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) 03:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{National Anthems of North America}}. That one is in use, this one isn't. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2011 (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:N-dimensional space 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N-dimensional space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{dimension topics}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The replacement would have to be done manually, as the templates have different shapes, even though they may have the same purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm pretty sure I did the replacement when I created {{dimension topics}}. Difficult to verify except nothing now links here except the talk page of it's replacement and pages related to this TfD; there are no transclusions so it would be safe to make it a redirect, which would seem best.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. It's now orphaned, and does not need to be replaced. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2011 (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:Mypages 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) 03:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. Doesn't seem particularly useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be used to list pages someone created, pages someone maintains, or pages someone thinks they own... 64.229.101.183 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why you'd need a special infobox for a list of maintaned pages, and WP:OWN says people don't own pages otherwise. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (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:MusicBox 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) 03:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be some kind of poor-man's infobox. Anyway, it's unused and unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2011 (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:NSWPL 2008 JWC Pool B Ladder2 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) 03:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NSWPL 2008 JWC Pool B Ladder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated league table, superseded by NSW Premier League#League table. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2011 (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:Rossini operas 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 Snow keep (oppose) (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rossini operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an atypical vertical navbox. A horizontal navbox exists at {{Rossini operas (horizontal)}}, which is easier to navigate than this one, where you have to look down one single vertical column of links. Suggesting removing this template and adding the horizontal one to articles instead. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose This is the standard navbox adopted by Wikiproject Opera and is one of 180 such navboxes, which collectively are used in hundreds of articles. The horizontal box was created as an experiment when the project was disussing the preferred format. The consensus was to use the vertical one. [1], [2], [3] If anything, the horizontal one could be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vertical navboxes are typically only used for "series" of (mainly society-related) articles (e.g. suicide, sexuality, etc.). These "operas by composer" templates are not series of articles in that sense of the term. Everywhere else on Wikipedia horizontal navboxes are used, because they are much easier to navigate for composers with many works. However, I rather like the composer's picture being present at the top right of articles, and also the fact that the vertical navboxes can be used for composers with few works. Previous discussions on this subject have been between members of WikiProject Opera only, it seems; I will leave it to the community at large to decide the fate of this particular template through the TfD process. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that the experimental horizontal box is the anomaly for articles about operas (all 1800 of them) and is currently not used in any of them—not the vertical one. Are you suggesting that the remaining 179 vertical navboxes which have been used in these articles for the last four years should all be changed now, thus necessitating the creation of 179 new templates? Or just this one, thus leaving the 41 articles on the Rossini operas different and "atypical" from the hundreds of other opera articles? Not to mention the amount of work required even to change all 41 Rossini opera articles to move the template to the bottom and manually re-add the image to the articles. Where is the benefit? Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe that the matter should be re-discussed. That's all. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per Voceditenore and long-standing consensus at WikiProject:Opera. --Folantin (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picking one template out of a series of 179 such templates is odd. The design of these templates has been discussed at length and in depth. I suggest to close the TfD per WP:SNOW. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Voceditenore, Folantin and Michael Bednarek. And the point about the vertical boxes is that they are prominent and there is no need to scroll down through articles that occupy more than one screen to reach the horizontal box. A lot of discussion and work has gone into making them user-friendly, with an image and the option of collapsibility for long boxes. --GuillaumeTell 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per all above. Further, the nominator's rationale sets a bad precedent in limiting the use of horizontal templates throughout the entire encyclopedia. That's WP:CREEP.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Voceditenore and 4meter4. Might I also add that articles on a composer's works do constitute a series. Ozob (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I reckon that lots of the above comments are non-arguments, and as much as I dislike the way certain WikiProjects insist on cooking up their own conventions are guarding them zealously, I do have to dispute that vertical navboxes (i.e. sidebars) are only used in particular cases. They're used all over the place already and there's no existing consensus which discourages them in favour of horizontal footer-style navboxes AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find the vertical list much easier to read. It's in the handiest and best location at the upper right of the article page rather than the bottom. Horizontal won't work in that location. The picture provides instant visual confirmation of the opera's composer. I use this feature constantly. I would really dislike a horizontal one at the bottom. It's very unhandy. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - the format is useful, quick, and helpful. I tend to agree with thumperward on this, to an extent; this, however, is a useful navbox, and I don't think it would do any good to get rid of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:01, 19 February 2011 (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:HEARTLAND RVs Model and Innovation timeline 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) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HEARTLAND RVs Model and Innovation timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by list in article at Heartland_Recreational_Vehicles,_LLC#External_links. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (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:HappyFeetChar 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) 03:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Character pages do not exist for this movie. Therefore, this unused infobox has no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2011 (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:Red Hot Chili Peppers Singles 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red Hot Chili Peppers Singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplicate of {{Red Hot Chili Peppers singles}}. However, some merging appears to be necessary. Someone with more experience in the area of music should do this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template actually predates {{Red Hot Chili Peppers singles}} by seven months; however, it was only ever deployed on four pages, and orphaned without reason shortly afterwards. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 14 February 2011 (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.