Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20

< April 19	April 21 >

April 20 edit

Template:Little shi'a 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate usage/cross-namespace problem. This is not really a template; the extent of the template code is an image link with a size parameter. Moreover, this particular "template" is only used as a replacement for standard bullets in the members list on the WikiProject Islam Shi'a Islam task force. If the image is to be used as such, it should be used as an image with a size parameter, not as a template. — MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a better way to replace bullets? If so, implement that way and delete. Otherwise, keep. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2008 (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:Public Transportation in Greater Los Angeles 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 debate was merge. If I missed anything, change it :) Merged to Template:LA Mass Transit. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is similar to Template:Greater Los Angeles Area Public Transit Erik93 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So? Lots of templates are similar to other templates. Do you have an actual deletion rationale? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: These two templates overlap in areas, but both have links that the other does not. All of the articles that the two templates link to would be better served by having one comprehensive template.--Aervanath (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Template:Public Transportation in Greater Los Angeles to something like "Mass Transit in Greater Los Angeles." As I generally understand the term "public transport," airports and Amtrack lines are categorized as "mass transit/transport" instead--especially air flight. If no consensus to delete, Merge to Template:Greater Los Angeles Area Public Transit. —Scouter Sig 14:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They do overlap, and there's no need to have both. As said above, the title of the merged template should probably be Mass Transit in Greater Los Angeles or something similar (see Template:GTA Mass Transit). — Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr. Absurd--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (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:Unintended consiquence 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 debate was delete. It's a borderline G7 speedy (as the author has said it can be deleted, and other changes are minor), but even without that there's still a consensus to delete. --ais523 09:04, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Ignoring the gross misspelling, this template provides little use - infoboxes needing parameter correction like this can just be updated by the associated WikiProject, or a bot can be requested to handle it. There's no need to make a big brown box appear in the article, which is only going to serve to confuse readers. It would appear this is only used by one project, and only by one infobox, and that infobox appears to have been mostly corrected (see Category:Infobox with unintended consiquence, which will be speedied if this template is deleted).. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless and unused. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom points out, the image issue is something that a particular project can fix. However, experience, at least with the project this template was used in conjunction with, has been that editors finding the images misformatted will just revert the infobox. Especially if it affects large numbers of articles. This template was intended 1) to alert the editors that, yes there is an issue, but that it is due to a change, and 2) to ask for patience and help. Originally there were 3 'boxes, each used on articles running into the 500+ range, that were going to going to be upgraded. Unfortunately, only one has been done so far.
At this point, the intent is still there, but I can see that the template needs to be stored elsewhere until those other 2 'boxes can be gotten to. What I propose is to move the template code to under my user page and remove the function from the one 'box that has been corrected. That should eliminate the possibility of the template popping up again in the wrong places, and it would still be available for future use. At that point the template can be deleted. - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update OK, I've moved it into storage and it currently isn't in use. - J Greb (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (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:Collapsible Christ 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 debate was delete. Duplicate, merged - Nabla (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with Template:Christianity, since they are edited separately. This is similar situation to that of New Testament people collapsed, and in that discussion one user pointed out that templates can be set to auto-collapse when there are two or more templates in an article. This would make this template redundant. Delete. — StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would make the main template collapsible, with a parameter to hide the full contents by default on certain pages e.g. Old Testament, then this one would be unnecessary.

An alternative which I can do myself would be to keep both templates but to move the contents to a separate page, as I suggested at Template talk:Christianity/Archive3#Expanding sections. For a demo, my Sandbox4 is a copy of the collapsible template, but reads all the contents from User:Fayenatic london/Sandbox. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Make {{Christianity}} collapsible with a parameter to hide the contents by default then delete. JЇѦρ 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and change the other template per Jimp. BTW, if this is deleted, the title would be great on WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hang on.~~ Have you simply made the main template the same as the collapsible one? Where's the parameter that lets editors choose whether to show the contents by default, as is required on most pages, or hide them just on cluttered articles?

The code within the first line of Template:Christian denominations, before the word "collapsed", may show how it's done, but I'm inexperienced in such things. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the template completely?. Everything is done. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was still no parameter for an article editor to choose whether the navbox should be expanded or collapsed. I tried to add it here (with the new parameter expand-main) but couldn't make it work.

In any case, what I was trying would have left it collapsed when using the template with no arguments, i.e. {{Christianity}}. What we need is for that code to show the expanded box, and something like {{Christianity | expand-main=no }} to show the collapsed box. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many addition to the template now. I have tested whether the can be expand and collapsed and it worked. To collapse the template use {{Christianity|state=collapsed}}. For example see Father. If you want the expanded it is by default. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now. Thanks and well done. I'm completely satisfied with the parameter you have added, and have added documentation on the face of the Template:Christianity page. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the situation of New Testament people collapsed, auto-collapse was a compromise and not that great of one. Auto-collapse does not let an editor set the state one way or the other. This template is not redundant and has been around a long time without complaint or trouble. --Carlaude (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is still a copy cat. Not matter how old the templates are. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2008 (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:F1 table 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 debate was delete. --ais523 09:07, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Obsolete/unused. Please also delete the redirect {{F1table}} — DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2008 (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:Pushing Daises 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 debate was redirect. The template has been renamed and cleaned up, and as the show will likely continue into a second season, it may become more useful over time. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it's become the norm for every television show to have a navbox, but this is slightly jumping the gun. Other than the cast (which aren't really directly related to the show), the template only links to four actual Pushing Daisies articles—Pushing Daisies itself, Ned (Pushing Daisies), List of characters in Pushing Daisies, and List of Pushing Daisies episodes—and the rest are section links within these articles. Thus the template doesn't really serve much of a purpose and would probably just confuse users when they click on a character and are redirected to a list. I think perhaps we should wait until we actually have a substantial number of articles before we create a template—and when we do that, could we spell it correctly too? Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the TV Shows have one, why should us wait to some other person go there and do the SAME thing that have been done, cast, episodesn characters, awards. That's what all the tv shows templates have. It's just lost of time delete that template. Rafaelsilveira 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the existence of templates for other television shows doesn't justify this one, and most television shows have more articles than Pushing Daisies. I'm suggesting that we delete it now, and perhaps it can be recreated after another season or two, when there are more relevant articles. Right now, it's not doing much good and it's going to be confusing for people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia—they'll click on a character and end up at List of characters in Pushing Daisies. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this template now, and after one seasons or two the SAME thing will be done, I have seen other TV Shows templates, like the one of Everybody Loves Raymond, that just contains characters and episodes and the TV Show it's over, and this one have a lot more information and it's just on the season one. But do wahtherver you want, but after deletation we will wait until next year to do the same job. I propose to doan article to the characters and think this will solve this "problem". What about? Rafaelsilveira 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I alredy fix it, I delete the part of the characters that was confused, and I just left the list below. I think now it's nice, and don't have to be delete. RIGHT? Rafaelsilveira 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mis-spelt title. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Better to have a nav template than a category. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & cleanup. With the actor links there is just about enough to justify a template. There only needs to be one link to the list of characters, though. Obviously the name needs to be fixed. PC78 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is already renamed. Template's utility is low for now, but the show has been renewed, so the eventualist in me sees no problem here. Original spelling error has been corrected. Xoloz (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (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.