Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2 edit


Template:RTÉ programming 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, but potentially replace with smaller category specific templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RTÉ programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is too big. It overlaps both List of programmes broadcast by RTÉ and the category tree of Category:Irish television programmes. It seems to include every RTÉ programme that happens to have an article, thus including some mainly recent ephemera and omitting much mainly older programming. I suggest the larger sublists can be made into templates for the relevant subsets of articles and this unwieldy behemoth be deleted. Other ways of creating useful summary info might be cross-dividing the category tree by broadcaster, or turning the list page into a multi-column table. There's no hope for this Template jnestorius(talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (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:Filmyear 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 once the transclusions have been removed. RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template creates a piped link to years-in-film articles, such as [[2010 in film|2010]]. Piping links in such a fashion has been deprecated for quite some time, so this template just plain shouldn't exist. (Note that the template is locked, so I can't tag it.) Any transclusions can easily be removed with AWB; as a Mac user, I can't run it, but can easily ask a friend to remove transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:EGG since piping links to "<year> in film" articles is not intuitive. Readers will not know from links this template provides whether or not they will go to the article about the year in general or the year in film. Better to provide year in film links in full, such as in a film article's "See also" section or in the proper context in the article body. TenPoundHammer, I requested for the template to be marked with the appropriate TfD template. You can request such an edit by using the {{editprotected}} template. Erik (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EGG, per nom, per Erik and per several discussions at WT:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EGG and per long-standing consensus of WP:FILMS participants that such piped year links provide little (if any) benefit to the reader. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EGG and also per all the discussions this subject has brought in the recent months. —Mike Allen 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What they said. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not a member of WP:FILMS but it seems that the consensus is not to use this template in film articles per WP:EGG, so no point in having it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most semi-experienced readers of Wikipedia would be highly reluctant to click on a link that appears as if it would function like this… 1999…link. The Wikipedian community recognizes this. Greg L (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's high time. Tony (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How about a speedy closure? --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete encourages overlinking to articles, of little actual benefit. I think we can close this per WP:SNOW. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and other arguments provided. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:21, 5 March 2010 (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:Rating-big 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) 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rating-big (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of {{Rating}}. Either integrate this template's functionality into that one, or delete; there is no circumstance where this one is necessary versus {{Rating}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 2 March 2010 (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:Campaignbox War on Terror 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) 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox War on Terror (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well, I created this one, but if you see the talk page it has been the subject of much controversy. Now I realize it is in fact WP:SYNTH, perfect for adding foolishnesses into it. DAI (Δ) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I guess not, since there were many other significant contributors. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, this template causes too much disputes. Qajar (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2010 (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 nursing org 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 per T2 as a well advertised prod for an orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nursing org (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, superfluous to any of various generic infobox templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 2 March 2010 (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:Oldafdfull 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

subset of the superior and backwards-compatible {{oldafdmulti}}. Requesting redirect there. (Note: template is fully protected, so TfD message hasn't been added to transclusions.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Widely used and very useful template. Most articles do not have multiple AfDs. No reason for the larger and more complex functionality when it is not needed. DES (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the nominator, simply redirecting the template to the new template will cause no visible change in its existing uses, and people can continue to call the old template as they have been all along. –xenotalk 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then he is incorrect, I just tried it when I noticed the TfD notice, but oldafdmulti is multiline even if only one AfD is listed, and uses almost twice the vertical space here. For that reason, it should be kept, per DESiegel. Amalthea 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Amalthea unless the oldafdmulti ensmallens itself when only a single listing. –xenotalk 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as expressed by Amalthea. This one is very widely used and is smaller. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:23, 10 March 2010 (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:WeightedMedalRow 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) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Designed for use in a weighted Olympic medal table, these tables are at best giving undue weight to a not widely supported system and at worst original research, particularly as the weightings seem to be chosen entirely at the whim of a single user. As such they have no place on wikipedia. Basement12 (T.C) 09:40, 2 March 2010 (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:WeightedMedalTable 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) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The idea of a weighted Olympic medal table is at best giving undue weight to a not widely supported system and at worst original research, particularly as the weightings seem to be chosen entirely at the whim of a single user. As such these tables have no place on wikipedia. Basement12 (T.C) 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I’m the author of {{WeightedMedalRow}} and {{WeightedMedalTable}}. Any resolution should be applied to both templates equally. Also note previous discussion in Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table.
The three weightings are the ones described in Olympic medal table. Personally, I would favor 5:3:2, but wouldn’t include it since it hasn’t been attested outside WP. So I’m flexible which weighting(s) to use besides 1:1:1 (= Total). I have also proposed to add code to common.js which makes it possible to hide the columns by default, the template is already prepared for that.
I have to admit, though, that the major maintainers of Olympic statistics don’t seem to be to keen on using these templates. If they cannot be convinced in due course, these templates are moot. The major point ofthese templates is that it has no predefined rank in contrast to {{RankedMedalTable}} (and {{RankedMedalRow}}) since the IOC does not really support such strong ranking of nations/NOCs.
I have not checked whether other articles on different sports and events would be likely to use these templates (perhaps in a slightly modified form). — Christoph Päper 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created in response to the typical debate we have every 2 years when the Olympic Games are in progress, about how Wikipedia displays medal tables. There is widespread consensus for the traditional ranking methods employed on hundreds of pages across Wikipedia. The weighted systems used by this template are at best, "what-if thought exercises" for newspaper articles, blogs, etc. and are not used by any mainstream media. Therefore, it would most certainly be undue weight to use those systems prominently in articles such as 2010 Winter Olympics medal table. We describe those weighted systems in the prose text of Olympic medal table, which is the appropriate weight (pun not intended) for that topic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (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:GA-icon 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 to delete, but some consensus to potentially "redirect" to {{Classicon|GA}}. Unfortunately, since WP does not currently have a {{{0}}} parameter, this would mean redirecting to {{Classicon/GA}}, and having {{Classicon/GA}} call {{Classicon|GA}}. I would encourage technical discussions about the feasibility/desirability of such a "redirection" to continue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, can be easily replaced by {{Classicon|GA}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Template is protected, {{Tfd}} cannot be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added {{Tfd-inline}} tag. --RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rewrite it could easily become {{Classicon|GA}} as a well known "shortcut" to it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{Class/icon}}, and template redirects don't work when there are incompatible parameters. --RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment my suggestion is not a redirect, it is an intermediate transclusion, with parameter renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any reason not to go all the way: change the content of this template to be a transclusion of {{Class/icon|GA}}, substitute all the instances, and then delete. Everyone would then be on the current template. Also, I note that a very similar deprecated class icon template was recently deleted, as were several others. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there nothing you'd rather be doing than making a fricking mess of my userpage? There's a backlog at WP:GAC, go and deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, not liking to see the TFD notice on a particular page is not a valid argument for keeping (or deleting) a template, nor does the backlog at GAC have anything to do with whether this template should be kept. And by the way, if you replace your existing transclusions of {{GA-icon}} (which was already deprecated when you put it on your userpage) with {{Class/icon|GA}}, the problem on your userpage will go away. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, thanks, I was aware my arguments were slightly ridiculous. There is no way I am going to remember {{Class/icon|GA}}, {{GAstar}} is much more logical. The backlog at GAC shows something more useful you could be doing than nominating this for deletion. Is the title needed for anything else? Is the existence of the template against any of our policies? Is not having this template going to damage the encyclopedia in any way at all? J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and Delete per RL. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??Keep Why would you replace a template with an alternative that requires more keystrokes? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reason it is deprecated, my guess is. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's a good one. :D
There must have been at least some discussion before the deprecation. I don't believe that it was a hasty decision. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were superseded into one template to make management easier and to also make updating easier if the case was to arise. And if iirc WPBannerMeta uses it to simplfy coding. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Delete or Redirect: I support any of the three resolutions, My current preferred standing on this would be to keep and use Template:Classicon as a meta template in this case or redirect to said template, Although I am not against it being deleted since it's redundant and superseded by the aforementioned template. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that at the very least we should redirect. Although, I prefer complete deletion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I too saw some funny tages all over my user page. I agree that having one is ideal which uses the least amount of bandwith/energy/whatever to use. Which one does that? Couldn't we just amalgamate them somehow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both templates are identical in that matter. Only thing that changes is the name. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to {{Classicon|GA}}. Not sure why deletion would be needed here. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I see absolutely no reason why this can't be a redirect to the new "classicon" set. This would save editing thousands of pages to replace then current target with the new one. What would be the point when a redirect can save you all this time and history bother (the amount of times I've seen vandalism creep in to an article because a bot made the following edit...) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant. Someone appears to have taken the liberty of removing it from all pages outside the User and Wikipedia spaces (including talk). Note that it is not technically possible (to the best of my knowledge) to redirect the template to {{Classicon|GA}} - it would simply redirect to the template itself ({{Classicon}}), and one would have to give the parameter |GA (like so: {{GA-icon|GA}}) for it to work, which would make all the more redundant. Intelligentsium 01:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator has given no reason whatsoever why this should be deleted ("deprecated" is a statement of fact, not a rationale) and I see no harm whatsoever in allowing the two to exist in tandem (why on earth was a new one made in the first place? The old one worked fine). If it should be deleted, who is going to program the bot to change all of the old versions to the new? --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination also notes that it is redundant, to a more general and much more widely used template. As to the replacement work, there are less than 1000 transclusions and it is not a complicated template; I could replace them all myself over a weekend using AWB. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why does this matter? This nomination alert makes my userpage messy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A truly pointless nomination. The template may or may not be better/easier than the one proposed for its replacement. Either way, deletion would create unnecessary busy-work. Why do we crave more unnecessary busy-work? Why not use time constructively instead? Don't answer-- I suppose some acronym and "Consensus" have something to do with it... Dekkappai (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A most useful and helpful template. Wikispace is cheap, no need to delete it, no overwhelming concern. :) Cirt (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, assuming that this will keep all the transclusions intact. If not, then keep. GlassCobra 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect - No need to replace thousands of icons all over the project. Awadewit (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect - faster to type than the alternative. Also, it'd be problematic (and frankly, a waste of bandwidth) to replace all occurrences of it throughout Wiki. Airplaneman talk 23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd say redirect but another remember stated the problem with a redirect so I stay with keep. Easy to use, a more convenient template than the other one to type (if only by a few keystrokes). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2010 (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:Source 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) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated and superseded by {{Onlinesource}}. Only ~50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please orphan it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this template can be deleted, it must be replaced with the new one on all the pages that use it.--Sum (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (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:Shban 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 both Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, ~90 transclusions. Superseded by {{infobox road small}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – oppose deleting this template at this time. The template isn't a one for one conversion as the new template has different parameters than the old one. Once all of the transclusions are converted, then I'll support deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after transclusions fixed. Per nom and Imzadi1979. Honestly, I thought this template had already come to TfD. --Fredddie™ 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all instances with {{infobox road small}} then delete. ---Dough4872 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A template based on this, Template:Wisban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) should be included with this discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just went through and converted all uses of shban to infobox road small for the Arkansas state highways. Brandonrush Woo pig soooooooie! 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC), all existing article transclusions of {{shban}} have been changed to use {{infobox road small}}. The single remaining transclusion comes from {{wisban}}, which calls this template and is also not currently transcluded on any articles. --LJ (talk)

  • Delete both – Deprecated templates not used on any articles. --LJ (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Per all above comments. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 8 March 2010 (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:Usban 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. All uses have been updated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, ~40 transclusions. Superseded by {{infobox road small}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – oppose deleting this template at this time. The template isn't a one for one conversion as the new template has different parameters than the old one. Once all of the transclusions are converted, then I'll support deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after transclusions fixed. Per nom and Imzadi1979. --Fredddie™ 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all instances with {{infobox road small}} then delete. ---Dough4872 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC), all existing transclusions of this template have been changed to use {{infobox road small}}.

  • Delete – Deprecated template no longer in use. --LJ (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Deprecated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2010 (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:Imagemap 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 to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, superceded by File namespace. While its almost 500 transclusions seems daunting, most (all?) of them are really in about 60 other templates. Replacement should be fairly straightforward and simple, all things considered. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nomination. To avoid such a big number of complicated & redundant templates, the developer Raymond has added the |link= feature to the MediaWiki software. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and T.E.IP.A (above), template is now redundant and superseded by a built in feature. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Hasn't the link= function been available for years? What about the tooltip? Is that included now too? –xenotalk 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I literally don't know more than you. 1.) The template is deprecated, 2.) File namespace has some similar (if not identical function), and 3.) the template is not used anywhere except a handful of userpages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unless someone can assure me that no functionality is being lost (unfortunately the document page for the template leaves much to be desired)... There is also the "desc" parameter. What does that do? –xenotalk 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this. Articles like Solar System still use it. Is there a bot that can go around to every article that uses this, and change it automatically to something else that would work? What exactly is out there that would replace this, and how does it compare to the current template? Which one is used most often? Dream Focus 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It uses TNO imagemap instead of Template imagemap. I guess someone changed it. If its the same thing, why not use the world template, that making far more sense than some initials if no one is likely to guess what they stand for. All templates should be named template, not TNO or whatever other nonsense someone has come up with. Dream Focus 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your search thing doesn't work anyway. I changed it to the name I see in that article, and it still found zero results. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=999&hidelinks=1&target=TNO%3AImagemap&namespace=0]. So we can't tell how many articles actually have it. Dream Focus 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "TNO" is not a namespace shortcut for the template namespace, and "TNO imagemap" is not an alternate name for this template. {{TNO imagemap}} is a completely separate template from this one that has a similar name and functionality. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The search works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loss of functionality. Taking the KISS maxim a bit too far.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article at present. That's no to say it won't be used in future. Maybe there aren't enough links to it to inform a wider audience of its greater functionality.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I gather that getting rid of this is rather complex, so I suggest unless we really need to change lets leave the existing solution in place. Happy to strike my !vote or have it disregarded if someone can demonstrate how to easily replace this with something undeprecated - but at the moment I'm seeing 500 sizeable bits of work for no discernible gain. ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI I turned on the bat symbol at WP:VPT to get some one to help sort us technonoobies out. –xenotalk 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the template is used, deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least depricate: I haven't worked with Template:Imagemap but it might be redundant to Template:Image. The functionality is in the built in version at least in my limited experience. It is not transcluded in the article name space that I can find using AWB and I think it should at least be deprecated in favor of Template:Image if not deleted. I have used Template:Image in some code that that I have been working on at sandbox. It's use promotes cleaner code and reduces the need to use comments to joint snippets of code. –droll [chat] 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is deprecated; that's why it was nominated for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the positive reinforcement Justin. After reading Xenos comment I looked over the template again and there is some functionality that is not well documented but is intriguing. The standard image functionality does not include everything this template is capable of although it would take sometime to understand what is going on. I change my opinion to keep. The reason for deprecation does not stand. –droll [chat] 04:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Droll. I don't see a pressing need to get rid of this template, redundant or not. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as far as I know, this template has no unique functionality over the link syntax at this point. The same goes for {{click}} btw. The form part is so complicated, users are probably just as likely to actually use the imagemap syntax itself, rather than this template. I think we can delete this one. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the one hand you say it has no unique functionality, but in the next sentence you say that "form" is complicated and duplicates some imagemap syntax. So it may have some additional functionality after all? So I still say keep unless someone can say -once and for all - that this template is entirely redundant to calling an image in the usual way. It's not really causing any trouble as it stands. –xenotalk 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Will require more work and lose some functionality. For example, the following, which should be equivalent in terms of coding, have different results (I previewed, the Image one isn't properly centered on the bottom of the browser and larger).
<div style="position: fixed; left:1; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; ">
{{Imagemap
 | image   = FlagRevsNo.png
 | width   = 180px
 | link    = Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions
 | Alt     = No to censorship!
 | tooltip = No to censorship!
 | desc    = none
}}
</div>
<div style="position: fixed; left:1; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; ">
[[Image:FlagRevsNo.png|size=180px|link=Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions|Alt=No to censorship!|No to censorship!]]
</div>

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:13, 12 March 2010 (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:Cleanup-tags 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-tags (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This really doesn't seem like a useful template. If an article has many cleanup templates on it, that's obvious to anyone who comes across it; adding another template won't help matters much. I suppose it could be used to find articles with many templates on them, but {{Articleissues}} does that job better. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This reductio ad absurdum of excess cleanup templates has a certain ironic charm, but the nom is right that {{Article issues}} is a better choice. --RL0919 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment possibly useful as a redirect to {{article issues}} 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helpful. Jojalozzo 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unused, unnecessary, and can be taken to be POINTy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not unused because I found this debate via an article it was on, but a meta-tag like this just adds to the "noise" on the page. As noted, {{Articleissues}} does a better job.--~TPW 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Too many tags, so the solution's to add another? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple of days ago I couldn't restrain myself from adding this tag to Psychonaut [1]. Deleting the template would remove any future temptation. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When an article has too many tags, add another to say so? how... quaint. Does not seem useful. DES (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_2&oldid=1146550335"