Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 21 May 23 >

May 22 edit

Template:Card suits 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) 01:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Card suits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the suits redirect to the same article. Andy0101 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (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:Moviesplanet.com 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) 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moviesplanet.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent purpose is to add to external links of movie pages. No justification that this website should be added to EL to therefore justify creation of template. Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (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:Letter-NumberCombination 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. There is consensus that this template should have limited use, but no consensus that it is of no use. It should be removed from pages where its use is inappropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Letter-NumberCombination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Adds bloat to disambiguation pages by adding links that aren't helpful. Bxj (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Example: FF (disambiguation) --Bxj (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Template does not add any value to the disambiguation articles, and I've noticed many editors moving (e.g. AB), or removing the template after a bot placed them. +mt 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: utterly useless gimmick. -- Theoprakt (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reformat as a see-also template. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't see how this helps anything. Rwessel (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: useless addition to dab pages (used for letter-letter combinations too, despite its name). No need for "See also" either: if I want PD I don't type PC or QD. PamD (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of utility, bloat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many letter/number combinations reference things that come in sequences - A77, A8, A9, and so on - and it harms no one to have an easy link to the next item in the sequence. The appearance of these templates on disambig pages may be somewhat remediated by putting them in a see also section. bd2412 T 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Many things come in sequences, but the elements in the sequences are not ambiguous with each other. If I'm looking for A1, B1 and A2 are irrelevant to my navigation. The appearance of the template on a disambiguation page where there is no ambiguity should be remedied by removing the template. If there is a useful place for the template for exploration (instead of navigation), then it could be kept for that (and still removed from the disambiguation pages), but I don't know what that place my be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful navigation template, small and introducing minimum clutter. The issue of whether such a navigational aid should be used in particular articles is an issue for the articles, not for the tmplate (which is currently transcluded int 1471 articles. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I've only seen them on the two-letter dab pages (which should account for about 1296 of those 1471 uses). There I think they're pointless. I'd be happy to get rid of them there, and let other people worry about their use on those other 175 pages. Rwessel (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provides no useful information for disambiguation of a given letter-number combination and especially when placed at the top of the page it is nothing but clutter. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Very useful navigation aid that brings readers to other pages that don't normally get any page views (and subsequently to discover articles they otherwise might not have, but even the disambig pages themselves can be interesting to readers too). It's not clutter, it's small and unobtrusive. I found it delightful to quickly and easily navigate through Wikipedia's disambig pages using this template and it's always fun to explore, something we should be encouraging readers to do. It would be a total loss to delete this. -- œ™ 08:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be in the "See also" section, though. It seems like it's not actually useful 99 percent of the time, in which case it shouldn't have been bot-added to 100% of the disambig articles. The template belongs in the "See also" section of the disambiguation page, not at the top. The set: "four disambiguation pages, one off on one of the characters" is rarely an interesting or useful set. --Bxj (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's pointless to vote neutral, I know. I do believe that the template is relatively useless and it does clutter up the pages where I've seen it--but OE certainly has a point, and it's well put. Thanks OE. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per œ. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:30, 7 May 2011 (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) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adds clutter with no value. May encourage excessive generation of acronyms. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can be worse than useless: It was added and re-added to A660, offering links to A640 and A760 - implying that there's nothing at "A650". In fact A650 exists as a redirect to a type of subway train, and A650 road as a redirect to a list of roads (I might be about to improve that situation...). PamD (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, A650 is now a minimal dab page. Possibly it ought to include the French ship Belle Poule (A 650) - but I can see no explanation anywhere as to what "A 650" signifies in that article title! If you can help, please do so. PamD (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful for regular sequences, ie 1A-1B-1C or A1-A2-A3 etc. although not useful for non-regular sequences (such as those noted by PamD above). Unfortunately template has recently been misused by an IP editor who on discovering that 11E doesn't exist has amended 11D to link to 11F, and 11F to 11D so that the gap is skipped (and many other such gapped instances). At some point 11E (and the associated redirect 11E (disambiguation)) will get created, once I have created the article GCR Class 11E. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for sequential pages. I used it to fill in all remaining two-character redlinked combinations. Furthermore, it helped point out the problematic lack of consistency across these disambiguation pages. See this list generated via the navigation. I do think it could be more cleanly incorporated into material at the bottom of each disambiguation page, since it is more useful for editors. Jokestress (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what use is it for editors? If I want a page, I know how to find it. If I'm very interested in 2-letter abbreviations I can look at Wikipedia:List of two-letter combinations and the other lists shown in its "See also" section. PamD (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template has existed for years without challenge, as it has proven useful for editors and readers. User:PamD obviously has very, very strong feelings about this template, given the number of retorts to "keep" comments here. The use for editors is especially handy when adding additional information across sequential disambiguation pages, which badly need standardizing. The use for readers seems obvious as well. A reader looking into cellphone standards may want to look at 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, etc., and another may want to review other uses for those sequential combinations. We use similar navigation on articles for single letters (see B) and single numbers (see 2). Plenty of precedent across the project for navigation to sequential disambiguations. Jokestress (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template may have existed for years, but was unnoticed because it was relatively unused. It has only recently been systematically added to a large number of disambiguation pages. That it has not been challenged before is pretty much irrelevant. A reader looking into cellphone standards woul be poorly served by navboxes on the disambiguation pages as each of the articles on the cellphone standards include links directly to the articles on the other standards without necessitating side trips to disambiguation pages. That is a highly implausible scenario. B) and 2 are articles about the letter and the year respectively and the navboxes on those articles relate directly to the topic of the articles as one of a specific type of article. On the other hand, this template on disambiguation pages (which some argue are not articles) merely connects arbitrary sequences that have no other characteristic in common. older ≠ wiser 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless clutter. On the vast majority of pages where this is used, if not all such pages (and of course there's never been any documentation to distinguish which pages might benefit from this template), it's essentially as useful as providing links to four completely random pages. E.g., this template is currently used on the BC disambiguation page, where it links to BB, BD, AC and CC. Is it theoretically possible that a user who visits the BC page might be interested in one of those other four? Yes. Is it possible that that user might also be interested in reading about the 2004 Summer Olympics, the football player Yuya Satō, the Canadian headland Cape Bexley, or the performance art collective Sister Spit? Sure. That's what the "Random article" link is for. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not convinced that this is useful for dab pages and I don't like the non-standard way the links appear on it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Small, unobtrusive navbox useful for sequences, as others have explained above. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if a sequence is useful, an appropriate template can be added at the article to which the sequence applies, like the one at the bottom of A6 road (England). Why is a set of links to the dab pages at A5, A7 and B6 "useful"? PamD (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone uses Wikipedia in the same way. Some people know what they're looking for, and go straight to the article they want. Others, including me, like to explore, and jump from link to link, and find interesting articles on a variety of topics. These links are useful for that purpose, to navigate Wikipedia, and discover and learn new things along the way. -- œ™ 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these links are being added to disambiguation pages, which are designed to optimise their use as disambiguation pages. Adding an extra template for your kind of searching just clutters them. You'd find a more varied set of interesting articles (and dross) using the "Random page" link. PamD (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's become apparent that the only reason this template even came up for deletion is because, unfortunately, some IP went ahead and added it willy nilly to a crap-load of disambig pages. In cases where a template is misused or seems unfit for a particular page, the solution would be to remove the template from that page, not to delete it outright, it's still a perfectly good template when used properly, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I disagree that it's clutter at all. Look at the size of it, it's tiny, I don't see how this can possibly impede anyone's experience when navigating disambig pages. It's small and out of the way. And it's a different experience from hitting the random button, it's a directed searching. You're still navigating to random articles but you know where you're going beforehand, and have a choice of which way you want to go. It's the whole purpose of wikilinking that this template supports and contributes to. -- œ™ 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cybercobra, and its a nice way to find an article where you only remember the first letter and have doubt about the sec. Christian75 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep If this template is used inappropriately in an article it can create irrelevant links, a degree of clutter and so forth. This situation can arise with no end of templates: those invoked by Twinkle are particularly prone to being intrusive. The solution is to remove the template transclusion from the article. It is not appropriate to delete templates under such circumstances. Thincat (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2011 (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 Australian Electoral 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) 01:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian Electoral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Specific purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2011 (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 Clan Duncan 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) 01:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Clan Duncan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sole use substituted into Clan Duncan. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the infobox being considered for deletion and What do you mean by Sole use of subsituted info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketraw (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information appears in the article Clan Duncan. But it is appearing there without the help of this template. This template is not used by any page at all. Hence it can be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (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 Orangutan 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 WP:CSD#G7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Orangutan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be something about Hungarian towns, not orangutans. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (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 ShavingBrush 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) 01:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ShavingBrush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, overly technical infobox. Borders on the unencyclopedic; shaving brush vital statistics are likely of no interest to most readers. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2011 (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 TV kanal 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) 01:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TV kanal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused non-English template. The English version is {{Infobox TV channel}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2011 (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 The Indira Gandhi (7th Lok Sabha) Cabinet 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) 01:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Indira Gandhi (7th Lok Sabha) Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only use was subst'd into 7th Lok Sabha#Cabinet. Unused. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only used one time, and should be moved on to the article.Curb Chain (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2011 (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 Sōka Gakkai 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) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sōka Gakkai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox with nothing to say. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Infobox for only one article and only used for the picture.Curb Chain (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2011 (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 Two Guys and a Girl Season 1 Episode List 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) 01:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Two Guys and a Girl Season 1 Episode List (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing to navigate. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2011 (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:Deportivo Saprissa Squad 2005 FIFA Club World Championship Third Place 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) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deportivo Saprissa Squad 2005 FIFA Club World Championship Third Place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad templates for a non-victorious squad are not needed. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OMGWhatABadIdea. I'm certain it was well meaning, but the last thing soccer articles need are more templatecruft. Resolute 04:09, 27 May 2011 (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:Davao del Norte Newspapers 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) 01:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Davao del Norte Newspapers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with nothing to navigate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2011 (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 ontario election 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) 01:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ontario election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by {{infobox election}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2011 (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:Warn 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) 02:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, redundant, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment deprecated and redundant yes, but not necessarily unused: it's showing as no transclusions because of WP:substitution. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2011 (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/2011_May_22&oldid=1138695386"