Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 7

< November 6	November 8 >

November 7 edit

Template:Infobox Bahnhof 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 rewrite the Bahnhof template to act as a translation frontend for either {{Infobox Deutsche Bahn station}} or the more generic {{Infobox station}}, but no consensus on what to do with {{Infobox Deutsche Bahn station}}. Although, there seems to be some support for rewriting that template as a frontend for {{Infobox station}} if it's feasible. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Bahnhof with Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station.
seems redundant to have both, we can always add functionality to the Deutsche Bahn station template to translate, or we could rewrite the Bahnhof template to act as a substituted-translation frontend for the Deutsche Bahn template. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Don't you think you should tag the other template too? If you are proposing a merge it affects both of them. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot, but do not merge. The 2 templates serve different purposes. Bahnhof enables infoboxes to be copied directly from German wiki (the major source for them) with minimal alteration or translation (hence the fields are in German). This is very useful for us translators because we can rapidly translate articles without lots of repetitive conversion of infoboxes - that can be left to a later date if need be. Deutsche Bahn station is an English infobox. My feeling is that we should a) choose the best "look and feel" of the two and then modify DB station to that, then b) turn Bahnhof into a "pivot table" which points at DB station, thus retaining the ability to import infoboxes without spending hours changing all the parameters. Whatever we do it's a shedload of work for someone. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until all articles using Infobox Bahnhof infoboxes have been converted to Infobox Deutsche Bahn station format.--Grahame (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This used to confuse me too, but I assume you probably mean to support the deletion. Nothing is lost and the process replaces or converts the nominated template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. I also consider the term "Deutsche Bahn station" is a bit spurious as I use them for all German stations, as they have the advantage of a built-in link with lists of stations in each state. They also support the useful Deutsche Bahn station categories (admittedly not used for non-Deutsche Bahn stations), the historically significant DS100 code and the numerical station codes (which were previously useful for the Deutsche Bahn home page info but now appear to have become obsolete).--Grahame (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Infobox Deutsche Bahn station}} as redundant to {{Infobox station}}, with {{Infobox Bahnhof}} as substituted front-end. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is slightly trickier than many recently deleted versions of Infobox station. Perhaps, like the deletion of Infobox Indian railway station has resulted in the creation of {{Indian railway code}}, we could use a subtemplate for German specific info. This method could also be applied to every other European country specific edition like {{Infobox Austria station}}}, {{Infobox Italy station}}}, {{Infobox Norwegian station}}}, {{Infobox Slovakia station}}}, {{Infobox Slovenia station}}} and {{Infobox Switzerland station}}}. If you do this now as part of a systematic integration, you will find that same solution could be applied, because these others are all clones based on the Norwegian version. This would exclude the more complex UK series and {{Infobox NS-station}}} (Netherlands) and {{Infobox PKP station}}} (Poland) which have already been converted to wrappers. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And don't lose sight of the fact that {{Infobox Bahnhof}} is a translation tool that automatically converts most German text in the original to English without any intervention on the part of the editor, which greatly speeds the transfer of articles and data from de.wiki. We can point it at another template to achieve consistency of appearance (I believe this is called shimming), as has been done elsewhere in non-railway templates, but should not lose the template altogether. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2012 (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:Unapologetic track listing 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) 01:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unapologetic track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A "cart before the horse" template. Most, if not all, of the songs should have articles to make this useful. As is, it's just an extensionof the album article on one of its singles. That's the only relationship between the tracks on the album and one can just link to the album to get info on the album. One doesn't need to get that from here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally unnecessary. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary. Statυs (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2012 (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:Navbox:Digital radio in the United Kingdom 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, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox:Digital radio in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Navbox:Digital radio in the United Kingdom with Template:Media in the United Kingdom.
Due to a mass deletion of DAB ensemble articles, the navigation box for Digital radio in the United Kingdom is now virtually empty. The remaining articles within the navigation box can easily be placed within the Media in the United Kingdom template. --tgheretford (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks silly with the transmitter like that now. Morwen (Talk) 19:10, 7 November 2012 (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:Patent 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) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patent List (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is used only two places. A template of this size is hardly necessary. :- ) Don 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete this is highly lacking in functionality, and only links to two patent offices, missing many relevant ones (such as the Swiss one, Japanese one or the Chinese one) further, it expects that the patent ID # is the same in both, and exists in both. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2012 (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:Pretenders to the Manchu throne 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, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pretenders to the Manchu throne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant with {{Pretenders to the Chinese throne}}. I googled around, and as near as I can tell the entire concept of a pretender to the Manchukuo throne is limited Wikipedia and mirror sites. Even if this was a notable subject, we don't need two templates that present basically the same information. Kauffner (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally agree. Just duplication. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are pretenders to the Ming throne, and there was the dynasty after the Qing as well. And also various other dynasties in the past. --- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the Chinese template -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (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:Fb13 rbr t pos 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) 02:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb13 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb13 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb14 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb14 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb15 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb15 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb16 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb16 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb17 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb17 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb18 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb18 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb19 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb19 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb20 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb20 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb10 rbr t pos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb10 rbr t pos/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos SwedenW12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos SwedenW12/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos Kenya12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos Kenya12/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos Kenya13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos Kenya13/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos KenyaWomen13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr t pos KenyaWomen13/c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by {{fb rbr t pos}} with specific values for |p= and |r=. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2012 (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:Country data Athens 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) 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Athens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and Athens is not a country. Also, the reason for its existence is to display a flag image which is redlinked making the template of no use anyway. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was intended to be used for suburbs of Athens but I am certain that it never caught on and since the flag is deleted from Commons it's totally useless now. Athens does have a flag but even if it gets uploaded for the right reasons I not sure if the idea would catch on again. --Marianian^(talk) 16:59, 7 November 2012 (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:20 Ghanaians 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; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20 Ghanaians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and of unknown use. Also contains a redlinked image. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per CSD G8? Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2012 (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:Papa Vs Pretty 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) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Papa Vs Pretty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox does not yet seem warranted; navigates between few links (WP:NENAN). Gongshow ^Talk 09:36, 30 October 2012 (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) 04:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Too few links. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:56, 11 November 2012 (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:Largest Income Earner Municipalities of the Philippines 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) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest Income Earner Municipalities of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is pointless as it basically lists down the largest cities/towns in population which naturally is the source of higher income vis-a-vis less populated places in the Philippines. --RioHondo (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Template clearly states the income of the said city/town and has has multiple relevant transclusions. Arguing that a template is "pointless" is not a valid reason for deletion. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is pointless as it is not even a valid ranking. Is there any other chart in the world that ranks places based on their income generated for the year? And this is 2010 data, and may not even be reflective of today's realities given that population and especially economic activity that impacts heavily on income can change drastically year on year. If this template is not deleted, i would suggest a change in title: "Philippine municipalities by income generated in 2010" or "Largest income earning municipalities of the Philippines for 2010" (awkward). --RioHondo (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as out-of-date. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be updated once the latest report will come out.

Once the latest report comes out, you'll have local government units (L.G.U.'s) re-classified as cities. This ranking is not just out-of-date, it's also superficial and unscientific. If you're gonna use 2010 figures, make sure you include municipalities as they stood in 2010. But you basically just matched current (2012) municipalities with 2010 numbers. So that the L.G.U.'s of Bacoor, Cabuyao, Ilagan, Imus and Mabalacat that were there in the 2010 list, you removed them just because they have been re-classifid as cities just this year. Unscientific, obsolete, what we need is a ranking of both city and municipality incomes, or none at all.--RioHondo (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2012 (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) 03:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - much as it really isn't a valid deletion rationale, this template really is pointless. It is not a good navigational aid and buried in the external links sections of these articles means the actual data is hidden and useless. I'm actually inclined to support deletion per WP:NENAN, though that also is just a guideline/essay. Reso lute 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. And again, it all boils down to: do we really need this template? I'd say no. Besides municipal income ranking is like more political/egotistical than scientific. --RioHondo (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2012 (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.