Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Template:WP:BUP/Tasks[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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP:BUP/Tasks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused task list. WOSlinker (talk) 21:15, 14 June 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:WM06banner[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. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WM06banner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused banner template WOSlinker (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this and moving the version that's in use to my userspace. I'll go ahead and delete this version unless there's some reason to wait. –SJ + 17:47, 15 June 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 Gaza blockade[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. The majority view in the discussion is that this is a useful navigation template (after some trimming), and no policy-based argument has been established to override that. The use of the {{Campaign}} sub-template and the "Campaignbox" name are things that could be changed via regular editing if appropriate; neither justifies deletion of the template. There is some apparent overlap between this box and other navigation templates, and I would encourage discussion of any potential redundancies, but nothing specifically precludes overlap among nav templates as long as the editors of the affected pages don't mind it. RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The {{Campaign}} template is being misused. It is for listing the individual battles in a campaign or war. However, Gaza Blockade is niether of these, and the template contains numerous entries which are not battles or operations. Furthermore; the {{Template:Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict}} contains everything included in this template. 386-DX (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change or Delete The Campaignbox template is "meant to present links to articles on battles and related events during a military campaign", so its use in this case in inappropriate. However, transferring the links to a template that does not imply that the Gaza blockade would be a military campaign (i.e. a military confrontation between two adversaries) could be useful. Cs32en Talk to me 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above (misused) Hope&Act3! (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really care what you call it: campaign or not, it seems like a good collection of links for navigation. Fences&Windows 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and narrow I created it and i think it should stay. I created it with the intention that it be used for the military actions of the blockade as any other campaign box would. As such i origonally only included actions taken by the isreali navy at enforcing the blockade, a criteria which i would hope is followed rather than adding issues that are of a non-military nature or are unrealated to the blockade. A blockade can be considered a naval campaign, i vote to kick out everything from the campaign box except the naval actions of the blockade.XavierGreen (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and narrow I agree with XavierGreen to keep it for naval actions only Samuel B52 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any real value in this template. It includes one situation regarding Egypt-Gaza, the flotilla raid, and the subsequent Corrie ship. It seems superfluous. By the way, the 2008 breach of the Gaza–Egypt border has nothing to do with naval operations as stated in previous comments, leaving only 2 things, the flotilla raid and the Corrie ship.GaussianCopula (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that others flotillas planed to come again ... An Iranian one is coming. It should be interesting to wait before deletion Samuel B52 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of campaign boxes with only 1 or 2 articles listed. And as Samuel said, the blockade isnt over yet and there is a high chance of another confrontation in the future.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there happen to be so many flotillas, you can create another template listing those. In either case, this template is not an appropriate choice for listing random events related to the Gaza Blockade. --386-DX (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its a fair statement to call the attempts at breaking the blockade random events. If naval actions dont belong in campaign boxes, then i guess nothing does and we might as well delete every single one on wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, until we have another template that can replace it. Campaignbox may be not correctly used, but for now I see this bring a way to navigate between related articles. I propose to use a similair template as Template:2005 London bombings in this case.--Kslotte (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is, or Delete if items are deleted; Move to war and conflict template if kept. If kept, it makes no sense to delete the parts of the blockade of Gaza on the basis that some are naval, some are land, and -- though this has yet to be discusses -- some are air. The entire purpose of a box of this sort is to bring into one place items that are sufficiently related that they belong in a box, but not so related that they are all necessarily covered in one article. The contemporaneous air/sea/naval blockade of Gaza should -- if this template continues -- obviously cover all parts of that blockade. To do otherwise might make POV editors happy, but has little to do with following wiki guidelines. Finally, I would have no problem with the war and conflict template being used instead of the campaign template, and presume that nobody else would have an issue with that either as this is clearly a conflict.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GHcool (talk) 16:17, 21 June 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:Las Vegas 51s managers[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 prior consensus, no objections, and existing grouping as a category Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Las Vegas 51s managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previous consensus on baseball navbox templates has been established that these userboxes have no utility if the appropriate lead article does not exist. Since, in the case, it does not, I'm proposing this template for deletion. — KV5 • Talk • 16:10, 14 June 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:Nefew[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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defunct template created for Nefew articles. Main article was deleted as Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. No articles link to it. No need to retain it. Jarkeld (talk) 02:03, 14 June 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.