Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8 edit

Template:Great Western Main Line 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 withdrew. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~This template has been effectively superceded by Template:Great Western Main Line diagram. — Simply south (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)~~ Probably better and possibly be put to good use. I withdraw. Simply south (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pending re-use of the original template. I'm no rail fan, but I find the textual layout of Template:Great Western Main Line briefer, clearer and easier to read than the distractingly distended diagram in Template:Great Western Main Line diagram. Also, many station names, such as Weston-super-Mare, Totnes, Newton Abbot, Frome, etc, are mentioned in the former (which usefully identifies the full sequence of stations up to the usual final destinations, Plymouth and Taunton) but unhelpfully omitted in the latter (though they are indirectly linked via the other lines). I can see somebody has put a lot of work into the diagram, but unfortunately the quality of presentation seems to be poor (e.g. diagram too tall, font is much smaller in the template than in the main text, red links, legend is on a separate page, etc). Sorry. - Neparis (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Messy and obslete. Diagram alternative is better presented and is a good template while this seems to be a mess of text. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster ^UTC 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - diagram is visually and syntactically preferable to messy text. Happy‑melon 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just because a template is messy isn't a reason for deletion--the layout can be fixed. Also, the scope of the two templates are different: the list reaches all the way down to Cornwall, while the diagram only goes as far as Bristol. Finally, I believe that the two should serves different purposes: the list seems to be suited to being a navigational template on station articles, whereas the diagram should be used on the Great Western Main Line article. --RFBailey (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've converted the template to {{Navbox}} format, so that it's a lot less untidy. I haven't done anything to change the content though. --RFBailey (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep serves different function to the diagram. King of the North East 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone close this as i have already withdrawn? Simply south (talk) 00:49, 13 February 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 Crimean town 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better to standardize. These places can be standardized to match other Ukrainian places. Crimean places such as Yalta and Kerch have already been switched over to {{Infobox Settlement}}. In fact, an additional pushpin map was added to the coding of Infobox Settlement to accommodate Crimean places like Yalta. ~~The remaining tranclusions will be switched in the near future.~~ —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All tranclusions have been swapped out. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated to {{infobox settlement}}. Note that you could have listed this for WP:CSD#T3. Happy‑melon 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sorry, I don't interpret #T3 to say that. If I did, I'd speedy delete it myself, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I've seen editors fight to keep the most redundant of templates (as I know you've seen recently) but we should give anyone a chance to object. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't personally interpret #T3 to cover this, either, but clearly many admins have a looser interpretation than I do. Speedying with T3 requires a seven day wait - you add the tag with a date parameter, and seven days later (if it's still there) it goes into CAT:CSD. Anyone who objects, just removes the tag or adds {{hangon}}. Happy‑melon 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obsolete. - Darwinek (talk) 12:20, 10 February 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:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Vermont 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a navigation box with only 2 entries doesn't seem very necessary to me. The same thing could be accomplished with a see also section in each article.. Rtphokie (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and why "Contemporary Hit"? why not just "radio stations in Vermont" and have that sorted by format. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All radio stations in the US are categorized by state (under the watchful eye of WP:WPRS) and major markets also have templates which are placed at the bottom of pages linking other stations in that market. Vermont already has {{Burlington-Plattsburgh Radio}}, {{Montpelier-Barre-St. Johnsbury Radio}},{{Lebanon-Rutland-White River Junction Radio}}, each of which at least a dozen links. A few editors have created format specific navigation boxes. The small ones have been deleted. To answer the other question, there is no hard and fast rule for how many is too few because it depends on the context. Consensus tells us what is too few.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How few is too few for a template? There could be 4 radio stations tomorrow that change to the format. There are several states that have only 2 stations listed, and a few that only list 3. I agree 2 isn't much for a box, but that could all change in a day. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When there are more, then the template can be recreated. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster ^UTC 14:02, 9 February 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:Brazil fc 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Non-admin closure. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. Performs a one-dimensional function, with no option for varied outputs for each club. – Pee Jay 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's the Brazilian football quick reference template.RFG17 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subst then delete as nominator. – Pee Jay 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst is not a good idea. Check this page to see how {{subst:brazil fc|Flamengo}} looks. --Carioca (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a very useful and widely used template. --Carioca (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template makes it easier to link to Brazilian club articles (since remembering the full names becomes unnecessary), prevents incorrect linking (specially similarly named clubs, like América-MG and América-RN, for instance) and standardizes club naming (for example, in cases like Vasco da Gama and Sport Recife, which are much more often called simply Vasco and Sport, it enforces the most frequent name). Also, as a side effect, it makes the source code of competition tables (such as Campeonato Brasileiro Série A 2007 more legible. Hetcenus (Talk) 00:03, 10 February 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:Area code 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 debate was keep, and endorse bot movement of template to external links. No sense leaving the discussion open while we wait for a bot owner. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted for the following reasons:

It combines internal and external links in one location. External links should be listed separately under the "External links" section, per WP:EL#Points to remember #2.
It includes a general link to North American Numbering Plan Administration. External links should be directly related to the subject of the article, per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #14. This link is especially redundant considering that a wikilink to North American Numbering Plan Administration is already provided.
Two additional external links point to the same area code map at two different websites. While a map link is useful, two links is redundant. http://www.whitepages.com is a commercial website relying on ad revenue. It seems to be included here solely to generate traffic, which is discouraged under WP:Spam#External link spamming.

The two internal links should be listed under the "See also" section of each article, while the relevant NANPA map link should be included separately under the "External links" section.
--JKeene (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if modified to follow the guidelines noted. The best way to do that, IMHO, is to remove all but the EL to the non-commercial site (link #4), which takes the variable. HOWEVER, likely with the assistance of a bot, maintain the other suitable links in the articles this template is transcluded in (#1 & #2), just not as part of the template. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, delete the note in the documentation that points to a template deleted months ago. JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree, the one line that generates the state appropriate NANPA map may be worth keeping. That will still leave a lot of work to do, moving the template to the "External links" section of each article, and potentially relisting the appropriate wikilinks under the "See also" section. Considering the number of articles this template is used in, does anyone have a bot to simplify the process?
  --JKeene (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just what WP:BOTREQ is for. :) JPG-GR (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modified per consensus on links. Mikebar (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, template changed per suggestions above. Request left at WP:BOTREQ to see if a bot will take care of moving the template and returning the wikilinks.
  --JKeene (talk) 23:27, 15 February 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:Vandalism information/Level 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6/G7. Happy‑melon 09:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was implemented and reverted 35 minutes later. Useless now, not implemented more recently AFAIK.. Thin boy 00 @066, i.e. 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That was in my time of noobishness. Go ahead and delete. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:32, 8 February 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.