Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10 edit

Template:Infobox dark ride 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 merge with attraction. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dark ride (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent fork of {{Infobox roller coaster}}, for no obvious reason. Only three transclusions. Perhaps merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the warning in the documentation; based on a couple of parameters, this template has the ability to transclude categories for dark rides. Using the RC infobox will also result in a "loss of information". (1) Is there any good reason we can't just add the dark-ride categories manually, since there are just three transclusions? (2) What information would be lost from these articles? This template definitely has a purpose, but I don't see why that purpose is important. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep temporarily, but not in the sense of continuing to use it; we should delete the template once it's not being used. After checking the parameters, I can see numerous parameters with the same name but substantially different functions; for example, manufacturer and type parameters. The roller coaster infobox has numerous parameters that are appropriate only for roller coasters, and using that infobox on anything else would cause a lot of problems. Instead, I'd suggest that we use {{Infobox attraction}} on these articles, and then delete this infobox once it's not being used. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge with {{Infobox attraction}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave out the transclusion of categories, there are only four articles using this template so it won't save any meaningful amount of maintenance time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2014 (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:R from postal abbreviation 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) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from postal abbreviation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems fairly unused since 2011 and doesn't offer much from {{R from abbreviation}} TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:R from abbreviation is horribly wrong, as it redirects to {{R from initialism}} not all abbreviations are initialisms, as there's a separate template for {{R from acronym}}. Even with that, not all abbreviations are covered by "initialism"+"acronym" either. This incredulous state of affairs has existed for two years. We should recreate {{R from abbreviation}} as a separate template, and have a "type=" parameter that allows "type=postal". Since these are all {{R from shortening}}, the redirect to initialism makes no sense. So the new abbreviation template should default to "type=shortening", while "type=initialism" is not default. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Populates mother cat of Category:Redirects from US postal abbreviations. I believe this was begun as an eventually empty parent cat that would hold various international postal abbreviations until there were enough to warrant new subcats for different countries. Just another project put on hold? Whatever, it's still a good idea whose time has not yet come. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:16, 22 January 2014 (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:Characters in The Tempest 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) 17:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Characters in The Tempest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to the main Tempest navbox, {{The Tempest}}. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant to main template --NSH002 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Bertaut (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; separate templates can help when the main template is overwhelming in size, since it's far easier to find the characters on this kind of template than on a template that's a full page in height, but {{The Tempest}} isn't big enough to impair navigability. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (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:R from filename title 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) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from filename title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that appears to be duplicating information from {{R from filename}} TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs to be completed. It has a different purpose than R from filename (was {{R from filename extension}}). While its use is presently minimal, it is not "unused". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:05, 22 January 2014 (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 football biography/old 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 history merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox football biography/old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated; unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question leaning toward keep. With a name like this, I'm guessing that it was very widely used in the past; would this be the case? I don't see the benefit to be gained by hurting the appearance of tons of old revisions, since it's not as if people are going to use this template now. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware if us ever having kept a deprecated and unused template, purely to preserve the appearance of old revisions. If that were an issue, we'd also be severely restricted in the changes we can make to current templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is that this apparently has gotten far far wider use than the typical deprecated-and-unused template: deleting it would affect many more pages than deleting the typical deprecated-and-unused template. WP:BIG is unhelpful in a discussion of notability, but since we're simply talking usefulness here, the number of uses is relevant to the discussion. Of course, I'll happily take a correction if my "very widely used" statement is wrong. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Andy said, and even keeping deprecated templates would not mean that old revisions would be displayed correctly, since parameters and features are altered all the time and without regard for the effect on the articles' history.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History merge. The /old template was forked in November 2008 by user:Thumperward. There is only one parameter change in the old template since November 2008, being the addition of 'caption' by user:TheDJ in December 2009, and the new template had that parameter. November 2008-current history at /old, and history merge pre November 2008 revisions back to the original pagename. It seems that if dateofbirth,dateofdeath,cityofbirth,countryofbirth,cityofdeath,countryofdeath are supported in the new template as fallbacks, the current template will properly display old revisions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 23 January 2014 (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:Pentax DSLR 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pentax DSLR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no substantive updates since 2007, topic best dealt with using categories. NSH002 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Pentax DSLR cameras. Keeping the old history doesnt hurt, keeping the old name will help people viewing old revisions, and the old template code help someone who wants to build a smaller navbox. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:58, 23 January 2014 (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:R from image placeholder 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) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from image placeholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template since 2008 and I don't think it'll find further use in the future. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how can you tell usage? Your link shows the edit history, but no usage history is shown. Does Wikimedia even maintain a history of previous transclusions? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check the cat to find it is definitely not unused. per Happy‑melon – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct is to Delete, but I'd like to hear from the people who created/used this template (@Happy-melon:).
Re Paine's comment, I did check the category Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace, and it doesnt contain any file redirects. Besides, the images in that category are not image placeholders. They are {{Protected generic image name}}s; @Davidgothberg:, creator of that template. 'Image placeholders' were rejected by the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much water under the bridge since 2008 and I don't have any strong memories about what was happening with this, but instinct says delete as being a confusion. I think the intention was to redirect generic image names to one central file and protect them like that to prevent uploading; I think we might have found that redirects didn't prevent uploads, or something like that. {{Protected generic image name}} is definitely a valid concept; this is AFAICT a misnamed attempt to achieve a similar thing with redirects, which clearly didn't work out for whatever reason. Happy‑melon 13:03, 23 January 2014 (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 AfD 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) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup AfD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is essentially redundant to all other cleanup templates. Typically, AfD discussions do not discuss ways that an article could be improved, only whether or not it should be kept, or whether or not it can be improved. When cleanup methods are proposed in a deletion discussion, they can almost always be covered by another cleanup tag. The wording of this template is also very vague; the reader is prompted to go to a deletion discussion to try to determine what needs to be fixed, where a specific cleanup tag would be much more efficient. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC), revised 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been in use for a long time. Often AfD closers need to close a lot of debates and do not have time to find the specific cleanup templates for all the issues mentioned in the AfD. This is the same reason why Template:Afd-merge to exists. Before that template was created, closers who closed an AfD as "merge" would haphazardly copy-paste the article's contents into the target article, which often did not fit very well where it was placed. By introducing that template, the action of closing the AfD is now separated from the action of performing the merge. If we didn't have Template:Cleanup AfD, we will likely see some articles kept at AfD needing cleanup either tagged with inappropriate cleanup templates or not tagged at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd-merge template works well, and it is a very useful part of AfD. This template, in my eyes, is not parallel to the merge template. AfD is a place to discuss whether or not an article should be deleted, and "merge" is a possible outcome if editors believe it's a good alternative to deletion. AfD is not used as a place to discuss how an article can be improved. There aren't many different cleanup reasons that are common in deletion discussions. It's usually {{ref improve}}, {{advert}}, {{POV}}. Also, most of the time when editors !vote "keep and improve", they really mean to expand the article with more verifiable information. That reason doesn't really need a tag, for if it did, 3 out of every 4 articles here would have an "expand please" tag. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an AfD template, which should result in a new deletion nomination within a set period, the template should be updated to reflect the coloring/functionality found in the AFD-Merge process -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's an AFD template. If you'd like to get rid of it, I'd suggest that you start a discussion at a relevant discussion forum, either the AFD talk page or the village pump for proposals. If such a discussion decides that we don't need this template anymore, we can delete it under speedy criterion G6, which includes the deletion of process-specific pages that the process participants don't need anymore. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is the wrong forum. This template isn't deeply engrained in the deletion process. It's an optional tag AfD closers can place on articles that have closed as "keep and improve". The problem is that this tag is inefficient and can be replaced by other tags or no tag at all. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is right. The first "keep" brings as an argument that Afd editors are too lazy to look for the more appropriate template. The other two editors have no real argument at all just state the obvious that this is a template related to Afd. To neutralize that argument, a notification was posted there. After all, this template is not an essential part of Afd, so it can safely be discussed here. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly return and read what I said instead of demeaning it as "no argument at all". Why should anyone give credence to a vote that is so far from reality? Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly redirect to another template which has the same effect. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:00, 23 January 2014 (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:Żurrieq F.C. 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) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Żurrieq F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary nav box only links to three articles and a category. Not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - links between three articles and one category - not sufficient. Giant Snowman 14:01, 12 January 2014 (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:Sliema Wanderers F.C. 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) 21:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sliema Wanderers F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only contains four links. Not a genuine aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - links between two articles and two categories - not sufficient. Giant Snowman 14:00, 12 January 2014 (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.

Roman 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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman myth (rustic) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roman myth (trade) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roman myth (minor) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates have substantial overlap in their contents. Is there any need to keep them separate? I asked the creator if he remembered why he'd created them separately, but he doesn't. Coming here because I suppose there might be a good reason for keeping them separate, so I don't want to merge without offering others the chance to give input. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you make a new Template:Roman myth to house this? (template:Roman religion is the footer form template); usurping the redirect would require a few transclusion changes. --- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was imagining that we'd merge two of these into the third and then figure out the name later; I hadn't thought of the name issue at all. Your proposal makes more sense than retaining the same name; I suppose I'll follow it if nobody objects or proposes a different course. In the mean time, I've bypassed the {{Roman myth}} transclusions in case we move the merged template to that title. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the templates are mostly identical anyway, consolidating them in Template:Roman myth will just provide better navigation HÆDO_reply 17:59, 20 January 2014 (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 cities of Ceará 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 after substitution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Ceará (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used in only one article. Info can be transcluded there, no need for a template. The Banner talk 11:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete because it is a single-use template that adds references and just looks more like a table that is part of an article, unlikely to be used elsewhere —PC-XT+ 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. No need to maintain attribution since facts are not copyrightable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Article content shouldn't be hidden in templates. Maralia (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (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.