Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17 edit

Template:FC Gagauziya 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) 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Gagauziya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains just red links, hence it is not employed in any useful fashion Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:53, 17 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:Simpsons episode 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by {{Episode list}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not every television show needs an episode-specific template boasting its name; not every episode of a program is notable for its own article anyway. Regardless, this particular template is unused, and {{Episode list}} already works great on "List of [insert name of show here] episodes" pages. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:24, 17 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:Sint Maarten Island Council election, 2007 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. While a reasonable case has been made for keeping, the combination of the fact that it is against standard practice and the fact that the template is completely unused makes a stronger case for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sint Maarten Island Council election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Council elections do not appear to be notable. There is no article for these council elections. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused and does not appear to be notable. Even if there was a reason for this information to be on Wikipedia, it should have been presented in a table, not as a template. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the island council of Sint Maarten has become the Estates of Sint Maarten on 10 October 2010 (Sint Maarten is now a fully autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands), this information is quite vital background information to the latter institution, especially because the Democratic party lost so many seats in the 2010 elections. As for the information presented in a template rather than a table: that is done with every election here on Wikipedia, so I don't get that argument really. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming a template after "every election" is most definitely not the practice on Wikipedia. Maybe it is common to do so for Sint Maarten or Netherlands elections, but it is more common for election results to be fed into already existing elections template(s). For example, the results of the 2010 U.S. Senate election in Connecticut were fed into parameters of {{Election box begin}}, {{Election box candidate with party link}}, and other templates; never was something in the template namespace ever considered to hold the results of this single election exclusively. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because the US has a FPTP system, which makes such a predefined template easy to use. In other (usually PR) systems, templates are usually made. Examples: France, United Kingdom, Germany, India, etc. etc. etc. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk)
    - Thanks for explaining the basis of your argument. I can see how templates might have to be created for the results of some countries' elections. However, I'm still going to say delete for this particular template. It's been more than three years and it is still not being used on any article. Also, a standard wikitable could still be used to convey this information if it was to be included on an article, even if such a table wouldn't be used for something like {{United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2010}}. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:55, 20 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:Singapore Army Organisation Chart 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore Army Organisation Chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused plain-text org chart. Doesn't look very useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:59, 17 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:Shreveport populationbox 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shreveport populationbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useful information, which I would normally insert straight into the revelant article, but it is unsourced. The article Shreveport – Bossier City metropolitan area states a different population figure for 2000. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the sourcing issue, I don't think that this information should be in the template namespace. If it can be properly sourced, it would be better applied as a standard wikitable; it's not like this is information that is going to be transcluded to anything beyond an article pertaining to Shreveport-Bossier City anyway. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:34, 17 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:Infobox typhoon season nopic 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox typhoon season nopic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (except in userspace). Apparently deprecated. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Template:Infobox hurricane needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed, useless. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 17 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:TEIMUN (The European International Model United Nations) 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 deleted by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs). --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TEIMUN (The European International Model United Nations) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template. And already covered by TEIMUN c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 06:14, 17 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:Appropriateness 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-standard article template message. Two transclusions that can easily be replaced with other, standardised article template messages. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 06:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Two simple lines of text that anyone could write is a rather irregular scheme for a warning/concern template. If the user really would like a quick way to place that text on user talk pages, they could transclude it via a user subpage. I would not object to that. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this isn't even intended like that. It's more like a text-only version of an in-article tag like {{tone}} or {{notability}}. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:53, 18 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:Bitter SC Coupe 3.0 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 Speedily deleted (CSD G2). Unusable template made by new user with history of apparent test edits to pages of all sorts. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bitter SC Coupe 3.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template loop. Second one today c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 05:58, 17 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:Infobox Artiste 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 Speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

An attempt to use an infobox, {{Infobox Artiste}}, on the template page {{Infobox Artiste}}, creating a template loop. Makes my head hurt trying to describe this.... anyways i would {{db-test}} this, but it doesn't appear to be a test. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 05:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No use. I tend to use CSD G2 (test pages) even for things that appear to be legitimate attempts at accomplishing something, but that are broken to the point of being useless. This one is an obvious G2 candidate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:07, 17 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:Related template 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, unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote. Produces: {{Related template|T1}} → {{Related template|T1}}
First, we do not autocategorize content pages by template. Second, even if we needed such a hatnote, it should be {{selfref}}. Unused. This one was used only at Category:Suburbs of Melbourne, while that template correctly did not autocat at all, see its history, so I removed that one. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the Suburbs of Melbourne being auto-catted was a Bad Thing, as is all content auto-catting. I created this template to document that deplorable fact, since at the time aI wsan't able to change it (or did I?). it is pleasing to see that the auto-catting has been removed. However there is nothing that says this template needs to be used on content categories. I had forgotten about it completely but it seems useful to me. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Bad Thing was in Template:Melbourne_localities, but it was nicely removed by RF :-).

Rich, if this one is to be used on non-content category pages, a) shouldn't we flag it as selfref by definition, and b) how is such autocat to be documented at all (I could not find that)? I mean, if this hatnote is used only once in a while, just another random grain of incomplete documentation. -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, why would we maintain a template you created and did not even remember? -DePiep (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More general: this template does not add to simple set of simple standards for hatnotes. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not used, and even the person who created it had forgotten it, which shows how useful he found it in practice. Nobody has actually suggested a good use for it, let alone put it to good use, and the nominator has raised genuine objections to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note "First, we do not autocategorize content pages by template. " should actually say "First, we do not autocategorize content pages into content categories by template. " and even that is sadly not the case so that "First, we should not not autocategorize content pages into content categories by template. " might be considered accurate. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 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:Mississippi highways 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mississippi highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, {{Infobox state highway system}} now handles the need. Dough 48 72 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:22, 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:Pennsylvania roads 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pennsylvania roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, {{Infobox state highway system}} now handles the need. Dough 48 72 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:22, 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:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Dynamics 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Dynamics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and out of date template. In case anyone cares, the latest version of AX is 2009; GP is 2010, and NAV is 2009 R2. B (talk) 01:43, 17 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.