Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10 edit

Template:Bgc 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) 03:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

purpose of this template is unclear, and currently, it is being used completely incorrectly in articles. on some other WPs this template is used to set a background colour for promotion/relegation, but here it does something different. I would say redirect it, but the syntax used on other WPs is not the same as our background colour templates (e.g., what colour is R1? ). Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 10 July 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:Retrieve 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) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old, and probably unused since it links dates. we already have this functionality in citation templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 10 July 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:Cowsay 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

userfy? Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag with {{humor}} and document as a talkpage quote template; since it replicates a unix command, can be used to emphasize something in a discussion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templatespace is not a skunkworks for clever MediaWiki hacks. No problem with userfication. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:27, 12 July 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:Sky Add-on channel 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) 03:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sky Add-on channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sky Movies Package (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sky PPV channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Everything Sports Package (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP is not a television guide, poor colour contrast, and better presented as plain text. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note, that if this is deleted, just restore the changes made in this edit. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 16 July 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:The Awakening 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) 03:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Awakening (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only links to main series article; navbox does not appear to be needed. Gongshow ^Talk 13:34, 18 July 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:SplitCategory 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) 03:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused and appears basically redundant to {{very large}} or another template like it. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This functionality is done via WP:CFD, where you can propose that categories be split (using {{cfs}}) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect softredirect to {{cfs}} -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 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:IndentedLegend 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) 03:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused, there are easier ways to indent a legend marker. Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 10 July 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:Neighborhoods of Tirana 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) 03:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Tirana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Tirana templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to the first two sections of {{Tirana}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 10 July 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:Kavajë 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 Withdrawn. See comment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia evidently doesn't have much to say about Kavajë. WP:NENAN. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indifferent, but you should have Template:Lushnjë deleted, since it currently has zero content. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You people think rather worryingly destructively on here. Rather than acknowledge we are a wiki and most places likely have notable landmarks rather than expand and improve you always think we should delete. Wake up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes it takes a tfd to get articles written. given your activity as a result of this tfd, we should nominate more of these templates. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could simply ask me to expand something..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history with creating blank templates, then wondering why they are sent to TfD. it works though, and appears to be the only sure fire way to get the articles written. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hurry Dr Blofeld - if you don't know, he's one of our most prolific editors helping to counter systemic bias. WP:DEADLINE.

I had assumed that the two redlinks originally present in the template would have been non-notable. It seems there are indeed more topics, and once again I find myself unwittingly interfering with Blofeld's article creation work. Sorry. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:03, 11 July 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:No spam email 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) 02:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No spam email (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inferior to merely using username{{@}}example.com. It's also almost the exact same thing as Template:No spam, except with the useless ability to make the username of the email small. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this one actually predates {{no spam}} by a month. We certainly don't need both of them, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and to make matters worse, Template:NoSpamEmail does not redirect to Template:No spam email. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{no spam}}; use a bot to replace transclusions with a compatible format for {{no spam}} -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 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:Javascript in categories 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Javascript in categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A boilerplate user talk message that appears to have never been used. It's all very nice, but I think the use case for such a message is minimal. Moreover, with no incoming links, no-one seems to know that it exists! — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really worth the effort to delete this template? I would have no idea what to tell somebody if this situation existed, this template would certainly be useful if that happened. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even comprehend what the template is trying to say, and seeing how it's meant to help out other users, I think that is reason enough for deletion. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took multiple passes to comprehend this as well. As a boilerplate notice it is useless, as the vast majority of editors would find it incomprehensible. Not sure it can be edited to fix that. Better simply to leave personal messages in this (hopefully rare) case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were about half a dozen people with this problem on their .js pages when I wrote the template. I am not really fussed if it is deleted, as the problem is so rare and I could re-write the test, but I am concerned at the specious nature of the reasoning used here, and will expand on that in the hope that it will inform future discussions.
1. The template is tightly targetted at people with (one hopes) either some facility with javascript or at least an awareness of what has been added to their .js pages. Therefore apparent obscurity should not be a deletion issue.
2. More importantly templates such as this are supposed to be subst'ed therefore assuming that it has not been used is a leap of faith. And indeed it has been used.
Thumper makes the point, that it is not documented anywhere. This is quite correct and important (in general, though where it should be documented I'm not sure), however the solution is to documentation, not deletion.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Yes, it was a poor nomination. The template seems to have been used (successfully) at least here and here but if Rich is willing for it to be deleted, then so am I. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing poor about it; I thought it was unused because I failed to take into account that it was used before being edited. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:59, 12 July 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:J.A.P. aeroengines 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 keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:J.A.P. aeroengines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely redlinked navbox. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings This, that and the other; I am working my way through over one hundred aeroengines that are listed on the list of aircraft engines, and some of them are a little hard to find. As an example, one other template that had redlinkes was also nominated for deletion template:Allen Aeroengines it was completed (although only one engine remained when the others proved to be too elusive), but it was deleted none the less. Now, I have to create it all over again. I ask that this template remain active, like all of the redlinked aeroengine templates. This is no small job, and the templates will be used as I can get to them. Thanks, Buster40004 Talk 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. It is better to create articles first, then make the navbox afterwards, rather than the other way around. Doing so would avoid this sort of discussion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Buster40004. Give him some time. If he doesn't create the majority of the articles within a reasonable time frame, then we can delete it. Otherwise, there's no hurry. It's not like there's a data shortage on the Wikipedia servers.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:42, 10 July 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:East German Post 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) 03:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East German Post (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is invalid. See Commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. Not currently used for any files, so can safely be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:38, 10 July 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:PD-German Empire stamps 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) 03:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-German Empire stamps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is invalid. See Commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. Not currently used for any files, so can safely be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:38, 10 July 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.