Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11 edit

Lexington-class carrier templates 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) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier armor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier beam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier complement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier propulsion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lexington class aircraft carrier speed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used in the four relevant articles. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lexington aircraft carrier infobox templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Lada class submarine 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 consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lada class submarine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A class of only three vessels, two of which were never built. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the number of vessels in the class is irrelevant. The two "unbuilt" boats have had construction started; while they are currently suspended, their fate is uncertain. They could very well be cancelled and scrapped, completed, or sold; projecting any is WP:CRYSTAL; at the moment, it is entirely possible that their red links could become blue. Standard article format for ship classes includes the class navbox regardless of how many ships are in the class or how many are bluelinked vs redlinks. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As they are not yet built, and there is no indication that they will be, then a template which assumes that they will be, and will then become notable, is the breach of CRYSTAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template makes no assumption one way or the other; it simply follows WP:REDLINK. Assuming they are not going to be built and, therefore, the links will never be needed, is the WP:CRYSTAL breach here. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No longer needed now the other subs in this class have been cancelled. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence, but leaning toward keep - we have Template:Admiral class battlecruiser, despite the fact that three of the four ships were canceled. These are useful navigation templates (especially when links to the previous and follow-on classes are added, though only the former will apply here). Parsecboy (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (for the moment) - currently the articles say building of further Ladas - as the design stands -is on hold. That still leaves 4 working valid blue links in the navbox which doesn't seem too few. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. Boilerplate garbage. If Russian submarines need a generic navbox then make one, rather than providing these daft stubby navboxes with a couple of generic links to satisfy "number of valid links" requirements. "But but but it's only on hold" is predicting the future. This barely helps to navigate articles and thus fails to meet the core requirement for navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the template's creator. There are templates that have a similar number of boats such as Template:Skate class submarine, Template:Seawolf class submarine and Template:Barbel class submarine. The red links can be turned into articles as the boats are almost complete. Furthermore, according to RIA Novosti, these boats may incorporate air-independent propulsion in the future and may go on trials by 2014, according to the Navy Commander-in-Chief -- "On boats of the Lada class, two of which are already laid down. Trials may begin in 2014. That is absolutely realistic." --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the simple grounds that even if the incomplete ones are cancelled, the partial completion and subsequent cancellation will be notable in and of themselves. See USS United States for comparison. - Jorgath (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2012 (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:Noodle 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 consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the more general Template:Pasta, which has been around much longer & is better for describing pasta products & subjects contained in the pasta template. Removing the pasta template & replacing it with a noodle template for all the pasta products & subjects is not helpful. FieldMarine (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old template Template:Pasta is specific to Italian pasta. The new Template:Noodle includes the old Pastat template info and adds other countries. jmcw (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pasta template is the more general one. The Asian noodle items should be added to the pasta template as "Asian noodles". IMHO, it's not helpful to have a noodle template for the pasta subjects. Nor is it correct to call the pasta varieties in the Noodle template "Italian pasta" because some were actually created in North America & many other places. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose about Korean, Japanese and other 'pasta' subjects? jmcw (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the {{Chinese noodles}} template to Asian Noodle & merge the items from the {{Noodle}} into Asian Noodle template. The {{Noodle}} by itself is redundant. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couscous,Fuži,Halušky,Ptitim and Spätzle in an Asian template? jmcw (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couscous is a noodle? I believe it's closer to a pasta. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the pasta article for a discussion. jmcw (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see in the pasta article any reference to Couscous being a type of noodle. Please provide a ref for that. Thanks. FieldMarine (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Couscous, "Couscous is a Berber/Arab pasta dish of semolina...". jmcw (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Couscous in a noodle template? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an expanded, non-italian-centric Pasta template. Right now this template serves an important purpose, as a catch for items that do not fall under Chinese or Italian related noodles. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 20:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The noodle article lists Italian pasta as a redirect to pasta. The pasta article discusses Italian food only ( small mention of couscous]]. Talk:Pasta has a fairly clear consensus that the pasta article should only mention Italian food. The template:pasta has reverts on non-Italian noodles. [1][2] I believe that we need a nav box for the general case of noodles. jmcw (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do we have agreement here on the relationship of pasta and noodles? The articles on pasta and noodles indicate pasta as a subset of noodles. Do we have consensus on the meaning of the words 'noodle and 'pasta'? jmcw (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in the pasta article that pasta is a subset of noodle & what is the reliable reference for that? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like our coverage of these interlapping subjects is insufficient in articlespace. That should not preclude someone doing the right thing and not artificially separating them in templatespace. The arguments against a merge here are weak to the point of comedy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Expand. I went to Bigoli not having a clue what it was (google translate having left it untranslated), then saw this template, admired it, used it... and only then saw that it was up for deletion. No! Very useful I found it. Apologies for lack of more intellectually rigorous reasons for keeping ;-) Also, "noodle" is a nicer word than "pasta" almost-instinct 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation for pasta & noodle templates edit

I recommend keeping the {{Pasta}} template & use it for all the pasta products & related subjects and merging the {{Noodle}} template with the {{Chinese noodles}} template and use that one for all the noodle products & related subjects. Perhaps we can keep the information in the templates separate, but link the two templates with a Wikilink (I'm not sure how that's done). Part of the reason i say this is that the Noodle template was pretty much was broken down geographically by type whereas the pasta template was by shape & subject. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2012 (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:Colonial New England 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) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colonial New England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I do not believe that this template, which I created, is necessary any longer. It's rarely used and incomplete, and too large as it is in this style. dci | TALK 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as creator and as nom. dci | TALK 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete because it is rarely used and creator is requesting its deletion. - Jorgath (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (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:Take-Back 60 Entertainment 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) 02:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Take-Back 60 Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template for a non-existent video game company. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Corresponding articles deleted as blatant hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per John. Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems obvious - hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per nom and above; it is a hoax with no basis in fact. - Jorgath (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – I'm afraid we can't keep this type of item on Wikipedia. dci | TALK 22:12, 16 February 2012 (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:Horrorfilmlist2 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) 02:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Horrorfilmlist2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused fork of template:horrorfilmlist2 template:horrorfilmlist. Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (rationale corrected 20:55, 12 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_11&oldid=1142562943"