Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15 edit

Template:Hang on 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 deprecate Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hang on (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated; "click here to contest this speedy deletion" is what we use now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still very occasionally used by semi-novice users who remember using it in the past. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason it should be deleted, to keep them from making n00bish mistakes of that sort again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does it do any harm to keep a 5-year-old template that has been burned into the minds of thousands of other users? I see it used, occasionally, by experienced users. Perhaps a {{Tdeprecated}} can be placed on it. →Σ τ c. 07:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. Of the 'thousands' of users who have had an article speedy deleted, most of them are WP:SPA and very few return to become regular editors. Those who do return will most likely have learned not to create articles that might be deleted and will quickly respond to the new template with its 'contest' button. Templates get changed all the time - often without central community consensus and without warning, as regular users of Twinkle will know. The new CSD template has been in use for many months now, is effective, and the 'Hangon' only adds to confusion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep used many times in the past and some may have survived speedy deletion and still be in the history. It is still a valid way to contest a speedy delete, even if not favoured. Hangon is not confusing, and you should expect all administrators who delete to be familiar with it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does no harm, and an editor supposed to use a talk page message even if they use a {{hangon}}. So if someone knows about it, and properly applies one, leaving a talk page message, it will trigger the current contest detection, and make it really clear to a deleting admin that they should check the talk page before deleting. If it saves one page from deletion because the admin would otherwise have missed the talk page, it is worth keeping. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark with {{tdeprecated}} "Does no harm" is a good reason at TFD and it applies here. There is no harm in keeping an alternative template that a number of users might be familiar with; that does not make them "n00bish" to use it - it's just what they learned when they started here. Thinking that an admin reviewing a tagged article might be confused if they see this template is imho ludicrous. {{tdeprecated}} was created exactly for a template like this: Something people might still use but shouldn't - so why not just tag this template with it and allow those users to learn easily? Also, as Graeme Bartlett points out, there is no reason why we have to create red links in thousands of article histories that once used this template if the same can easily achieved without deletion. Regards So Why 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sceptical that the "editors use this and won't understand when it breaks" argument really holds water, there's little harm in deprecating this and deleting it in six months. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
deprecate and delete down the road. Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse a deprecation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 24 October 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:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template for use with a single use image. Should be substituted and deleted. TDL (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's now transcluded on nine pages. The template was created hours ago, and its ancestor a few days ago. Spend your time on something more constructive, mate. Nightw 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, of course, isn't actually true and your incivility isn't helpful to the discussion. The template was originally created at Talk:Palestine 194/Map legend and added to the article on September 24th. Only after I merged the content into the article and was reverted by you was the content copy and pasted to Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend a few hours ago.

That being said, since the user has just now added the template and image to multiple article it should be kept. TDL (talk) 21:39, 15 October 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:Angry Birds 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 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angry Birds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two links- which redirect back to the main article. « ₣M₣ » 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for this with only two articles. --McDoob AU 93 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse the house on this pig per above. It doesn't get any more WP:NENAN than this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy with the black bird - per nom. →Σ τ c. 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... Keep.. Keep.. no.. Delete with the boomerang bird - per nom. --Surturz (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blue bird clicked a millisecond before impact to get a good blast. Three stars yo. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:22, 20 October 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:Bracket-tag 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 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bracket-tag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Text can easily be entered directly. Not been widely used in last 5 years. WOSlinker (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any use for this, since it hardcodes "tag", it should be flexible like the {{bracket}} with a parameter setting the use. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple text substitution. Not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:39, 17 October 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:Modern Dharmic writers 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Dharmic writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary and almost random assortment of individuals that really have no association with one another. I can't imagine that there are really that many readers navigating from Ken Wilber to B. R. Ambedkar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the template has a number of problems. But some of the individuals listed on the template do cite each other -- especially within traditions, but sometimes also across traditions. That's not particularly surprising, since they are all concerned with dharma, and sometimes they think that each other have things that are sufficiently insightful that they merit mention. The fact that we can identify pairs that are very different than each other does not make the category intrinsically invalid. What bothers me more is that the category seems very fuzzy around the edges, and there seems a low bar for entry. Does any modern person who has published a few words about dharma merit inclusion? I don't think so. But rather than simply delete the category, I'd be inclined to try to concoct some sort of inclusion criteria, even if their application has subjective elements. Frankly, I suspect that people who are interested in dharma do in fact find this template useful as an easy way to find out more about writers they have heard about, as well as to learn the names of others that might interest them. -- Presearch (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the second nomination for deletion. The earlier nomination resulted in "Keep". I agree with the earlier discussion. A better exposition of the criteria for inclusion would be helpful, but that's not enough cause to delete. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:19, 20 October 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.

NFL head coach navboxes by season 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 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 NFL Head Coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2010 NFL Head Coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The fact that these men happened to be NFL head coaches during the same season is a tenuous connection that does not warrant a navbox. If these are allowed to stay, think of the snowball effect it could have. The NFL and its predecessor date back 60+ years, and some head coaches had tenures that are two or three decades long. You mean to tell me that having 25 of these on the same person's article would be acceptable? I think this should be nipped in the bud immediately. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, imagine the clutter on Don Shula's page. Template:NFLHeadCoaches for current head coaches seems warranted. But we don't need one for every historical year. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 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.