Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8 edit

Template:Bionic 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) 00:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing the album article doesn't provide information for. Album templates have also been deleted for Coldplay, Rihanna and Beyonce. Redundant template. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not about Bionic -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no need for per-album navboxes here. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 9 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:Img1 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, after replacement with more generic templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Img1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Img2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused outside of userspace, could be moved to that user's space. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a category and documentation for this template and plan to use it eventually in some flora tables for the general population.--Nonenmac (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (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) 22:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessarily duplicates the image syntax as a template. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please do not delete. Img1 actually provides an adjustable white border that can be used to expand an image to the width of a table cell. Img2 combines 2 images within a single white border to fill a table cell. Using these two templates helps provide a consistent appearance in a table column where image proportions vary, especially when some of the images are drawings with white backgrounds and others are photographs. See User:Nonenmac/Flora of -- Nonenmac (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfying these wouldn't make much sense, as they're primarily used in articlespace drafts. They should simply be deleted. This is 2012, which is at least a decade after anyone should have stopped using tables for presentational trivia like padding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{img1}}. Not needed; instead use [[File:Example.png|x100px]] (note the "x"), where 100 is the desired height. Keep {{img2}} but rewrite so it uses <div>...</div> tags instead of tables, per Chris. (I see that Chris wants it deleted, but I am not sure what he would like to see it replaced with.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2012 (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) 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{img2}} redundant with {{double image}} -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't - {{double image}} has a "frame", unlike {{img2}}. Prehaps the two templates should be merged. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per This, that and the other and 70.49.127.65, this appears to be redundant to either simple image syntax or templates like {{multiple image}}/{{double image}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 9 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:Amy Winfrey 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) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amy Winfrey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only navigates three articles, which are already linked to each other; the remaining 'other works' seem unlikely to be turned into articles any time soon. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2012 (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) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, navigates 6 articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 9 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:US Traditions 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) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Traditions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Template is a hodgepodge of completely unrelated topics - sports, politics, shopping and unofficial observances under the POV argument that they are "traditions". Election day is a "tradition"? Trying to join a credit card company's promotion (Small Business Saturday) with the Super Bowl with National Doughnut Day with Tax Day is, in a word, ridiculous. Reso lute 16:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not a good subject for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 9 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:UK Highways Agency rank insignia 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) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Highways Agency rank insignia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was in use for only one article; I substituted it into the article. This is a simple table that should be in the article rather than moved out of it and transcluded in place. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no need for a single use template. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 9 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:Quadra Media 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) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quadra Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only has a link to a single article. WOSlinker (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. The rest of the magazines owned by Quarda got sold. --Shortride (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no need for a navbox now that the other magazines have been sold. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 9 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:CFL roster 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) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFL roster footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same reasoning as presented at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Template:MLB roster footer. This template adds irrelevant links to the rosters of all teams onto every team article, sending the reader into template namespace no less, rather than an actually useful article. Moreover, the roster templates already have "more rosters" links that serves the same function and sends the reader to a superior list article. Reso lute 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including {{CFL staff footer}} with this nomination for the same reason. Reso lute 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't even useful to navigate between the templates, because we have Category:Canadian Football League roster templates and Category:Canadian Football League staff templates for that. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I create templates that I would like to use. I find the footers more useful to me than the categories, but there are varying opinions on this. I created them because, I think it is a better navigational tool than what is out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful way to navigate and simply adds clutter to the templates. No reason for the footer to exist. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no need for a footer here. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is also List of current Canadian Football League staffs which links from every template anyway. These templates become redundant. Cmm3 (talk) 05:59, 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:Grey Cup venues 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) 00:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey Cup venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and redundant to {{Grey Cup}}, which also lists each year's Grey Cup game in a more logical fashion. On top of redundancy, the template is an utter mess given that it jumps from city to city and game to game in a non-obvious order that actively hinders navigation. The intended function of this template is addressed in a far superior fashion at List of Grey Cup champions. Reso lute 03:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean. You're right that this links to all the Grey Cups, when we already have a template that does so, but this is a navbox to venues that have held the Cup. Surely this template has some value if it only lists the venues. 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree. It is effectively a case of performer by performance. It would be like creating a template for the stadiums that U2 has played. Moreover, there is no reason to link Rosedale Field and McMahon Stadium in a template as the two facilities share no relation other than the fact they both hosted football games. Resolute 15:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a relation. This navbox serves as a replacement for procession boxes, it would be ridiculous to list 12 nexts on Exhibition Stadium. 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it would. But I've always found such succession boxes ridiculous as well. And it may be a relation, but the relationship is about as strong as the one between MTS Centre, Max Bell Arena and Ricoh Coliseum, given they all host(ed) hockey games. WP:NENAN. Reso lute 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no strong connection between venues. the links in the main Grey Cup template are enough. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 9 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.