Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 December 24)
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24 edit

Template:Ytplus 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created by vandal, no explanation for usage. Probably a copy of another template with a more sensible name, but it's not worth discussing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sandbox testing. --GPPande 19:39, 27 December 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:Leona Lewis singles 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leona Lewis singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Leona Lewis. Lewis does not have enough singles for a singles template to be necessary. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 24 December 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:Combine Summarys 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Combine Summarys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with no clear indication what it is supposed to do. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. This text does not make any sense. No formatting or conditional data either. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, useless. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:56, 24 December 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:Coup d'état 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coup d'état (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog See corresponding talk page. (woof!) 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is a navigational template used for jumping between various coup related articles. Use it to jump --directly-- to each coup articles listed chronologically by country. User need not go to the list article to find which other coups occurred in past and then visit the coup articles - principal reason behind navigational templates - also applies here. List of 3 groups is not long. No other substitute to this template exists, its first of its kind. --GPPande 17:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted on the talk page, List of coups d'état and coup attempts has a much more complete (and longer!) list - simply limiting the template to coups since 1990 is completely arbitrary. Moreover, navbox templates like this are generally only used for sets of articles surrounding a single subject - these articles are largely unrelated, other than that they're all about coups - the basic subject in each case is the history of the country, not the abstract concept of "coup". Zetawoof(ζ) 09:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list can be expanded, if needed, prior to 1990. Regarding "abstract concept of coup" Template:Stock market crashes is one good example of how navigational templates relate different events similar in nature occurred across globe in past. This template also originates from a list. There are many many more similar navigational templates that fit the rule - I just mentioned one. --GPPande 09:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It really is a useful and interesting template and handy for navigational purposes.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:08, 31 December 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.

Rugby Union 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 Happy‑melon 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACTru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:Rugby union squad templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Wider_opinion_neededGnevin (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This should be a fairly procedural deletion as consensus has already been established within the appropriate WikiProject. – PeeJay 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes this can go. I believe changes have been made to delink it and does not add much value. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Originally closed this as delete but then changed my mind...not due to the discussion but due to the fact that we also have Category:Rugby union squad navigational boxes (with a mess of subcats underneath it). Not sure how to handle that since it was not included in this discussion but it's an orphan otherwise. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how this affects the discussion apart from WP:RU may want to look into cleaning up the Category as the templates above are just links this shouldn't affect the templates in the sub category Gnevin (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2009 (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:Project U.S. Roads/Newsletter 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project U.S. Roads/Newsletter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no more USRD newsletter. :( Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer a functional use for this template. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:14, 25 December 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete It no longer exists, so remove the trash. --Triadian (talk) 05:12, 27 December 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:Number 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. Happy‑melon 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not positive what the purpose of this could be. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepDelete (see below), but revise meaning. I say keep it unless there is a better method in existence to quickly disambiguate between the many numbered roads in the world. Otherwise, it's going to be a pain for users typing in the names of the numbered routes exactly. Now, which page this template should go on? Maybe they should be on all the numbered road lists like List of highways numbered 59 so you can easily navigate them. --Triadian (talk) 05:15, 27 December 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:Roads in Alabama 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. Happy‑melon 23:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in Alabama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This only has the Interstates and U.S. Routes in Alabama. This should also include the State Routes as well. However, since there are too many to put on a template, this template shouldn't even exist. See WP:USRD/P for similar debates. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Rschen is right. If anything, there should be two templates; one for Interstates in AL and one for US Routes in AL... along with a separate state route one. --Triadian (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except we typically don't do a separate state route one due to size concerns. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, only if it's reasonable size. --Triadian (talk) 08:20, 27 December 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:Ineffcient 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 Deleted by JPG-GR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No content Geoff T C 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:02, 24 December 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:Infobox Belgische deelgemeente + Template:Infobox deelgemeente Belgium 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 orphan and delete - this template should be replaced by properly-formed transclusions of {{Infobox Settlement}}, and the orphaned templates should be deleted. Happy‑melon 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Belgische deelgemeente (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox deelgemeente Belgium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The former calls the latter. Not in English. Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}, into which it should be merged. (between 50-100 transclusions) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Orphan and then speedy delete per G6 (housekeeping). —Ms2ger (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. Orphan and then speedy delete per G6.—MJCdetroit (yak) 17:02, 30 December 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:WP Indian + Template:Wp Indian 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Indian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wp Indian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created with self-transclusion as only content. Template loop. Not used. Blanked and nominated for delete. Suggesting Speedy Delete. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 (housekeeping). —Ms2ger (talk) 10:35, 24 December 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:Bold 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was speedy keep - disruptive nomination. Invalid closure by creator of template

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

seems entirely redundant to {{expand}}. Does nothing that that template doesn't do other than linking to what is at best a well-used guideline, then basically negates itself by telling editors to discuss major changes first. Given that being bold is best achieved by people who know the limitations of WP:BOLD, it may even be counterproductive by encouraging inappropriate large-scale edits. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all redundant to {{expand}}. It doesn't negate itself, either. being bold is different than making major edits. The {{bold}} template simply says that users should make an edit if they feel it is necessary. It even says here that:

All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page.[1]

This template should not be listed here on the TfD page, as it pertains to the following:

  • Policy or guideline templates
    Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.[2]

The {{bold}} template focused on the Wikipedia editing guideline stating to be bold. This guideline can be found in writing here. Thus, {{bold}} cannot be listed on templates for deletion, and i am removing the tag for the template. I think that the template in question deserves to stay on Wikipedia for those reasons. I'm closing this discussion, as it is clear that this template is ineligible for TfD. Gbchaosmaster (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a complete misinterpretation of that6 rule.This is not a policy or guideline template. Simply mentioning a policy or guideline within a template does not make it a Policy or Guideline template. The example given clearly shows what a PGT is - one which is relied on as part of a process which is a policy or guideline (such as {{tfd}}, {{uw}} or {{sfr-c}}). This is not such a template - no policy or guideline relies on the existence of this template in order for it to operate correctly. Furthermore, as creator of the template and with a vested interest in it, you cannot close a debate on its deletion. Referring to this nomination as "disruptive" is also offensive and insulting - it was done in good faith, and you should assume good faith in your interpretation of it. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone gives me a clear explanation about why this template is really specifically necessary. WP:BOLD is one of the number of policies and guidelines (like WP:AGF, WP:MOS, WP:NOT, and others) that is applied on every article – at all times of the day, week, month, year, etc. Therefore, IMO, it is the kind of global message I would put on MediaWiki:Editnotice-0 (where it would show up on every article page) or MediaWiki:Editnotice-1 (where it would show up on every talk page), or put on some other system message. It is not like something like {{POV}} that warns that an article specifically has POV problems, or {{expand}} where there is a very specific request to expand an article or section, or {{current}} which specifically warns that an article is being frequently updated. Bottom line: Unless there is a need to put it on specific articles, I think it is instruction creep to have a separate general template transcluded into the main article namespace to remind Wikipedians about policies and guidelines that is applied to every single article 24/7. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Agree with Zzyzx11, boldness should be everywhere always, so either this template should be placed everywhere (which would make it a useless nuisance) or alternative it could be used as an incentive to be overly bold (which in my experience is usually blunt and disruptive) for specific articles and as such would be a call for edit war on the specific page. Both usages may do not improve the edits (but rather harm them). Arnoutf (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, as well as the following: Lack of boldness is an issue of individual editors, not with the article. If an editor is being insufficiently bold, then tell them personally, and in your own words. (Or by using {{sofixit}}, if you must.) But don't just stick this on a particular talk page that they've been involved in - that's ineffective. (And, indeed, this template isn't even used as a talk page banner anywhere.) Zetawoof(ζ) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: boldness is a personal trait, not an article issue. Exhorting boldness like this will only encourage inexperienced editors to misue the policy, wheras experienced editors who understand the spirit and limitations of WP:BOLD don't need a template to tell them to do so. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:30, 1 January 2009 (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.
  1. ^ Quoted exactly from this page on December 23, 2008.
  2. ^ Quoted from above on December 23, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_24&oldid=1140169769"