Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Template:NBlist[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Renominating this template on it's own.) Redundant to {{NBbox}}, which by default links to the same page as this template, albeit with a different pipe. Only a few transclusions. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 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:WPlist[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Renominating this template on it's own.) Redundant to {{WPbox}}, which by default links to the same page as this template, albeit with a different pipe. Only a few transclusions. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: ...and even more tedious. To speed up this whole process, here's a list of more than 600 templates I've created so you can ask for the deletion of the lot. I'm sure this will vastly improve Wikipedia. You folks who devote your lives to deleting the work of others must be very proud. Yours facetiously, Buaidh 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a hardcoded instance of {{WPbox}} as PC78 says. I can't see that the comment above has any productive value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Buaidh 19:14, 14 October 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:Family Affairs character[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Affairs character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since Family Affairs is a Soap, replace usage with {{Infobox soap character 2}} WOSlinker (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and use infobox 2.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 23:49, 11 October 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.

Reality TV contestant infoboxes[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) 03:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project Runway contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Survivor contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both are overly specific. Such show-related trivia as "tribes" and "elimination challenges" are non-defining traits for these individuals. Otherwise they aren't doing anything that couldn't be done by {{Infobox person}}, which is far more comprehensive and can cater for these individuals much better. PC78 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{The Amazing Race contestant}} (TfD) and {{Infobox Big Brother contestant}} (TfD) have both been discussed last month and deleted as a result. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 16 October 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:Infobox soap character[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 opposed. While it would be quite easy to merge the two infoboxes together and keep all the fields, too many editors are worried about merging of fields further down the line. It may be worth sorting out the duplication of two Created By fields in Infobox soap character 2 though. WOSlinker (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox soap character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox soap character 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox soap character with Template:Infobox soap character 2.
There is no reason to have two infoboxes for the same purpose. Both templates have a similar structure and there is already a substantial degree of overlap with regard to parameters. Consolidating these into a single infobox is logical and should be easy enough to implement. PC78 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (leaning towards support). This has come up before, and I think tthe main difference in usage is that {{Infobox soap character}} tends to be used in American shows and {{Infobox soap character 2}} in British ones. In fact, several non-soap articles now use Infobox soap character 2. I am not opposed to merging, but I would prefer to see the slightly more compact layout of {{Infobox soap character 2}} used and would hope that none of the fields are actually lost, so in theory I do support a merge, as long as it is a full merge (technically merging Infobox soap character to Infobox soap character 2). AnemoneProjectors 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any probelm with that. There's nothing fundamentally different about British and American soap characters. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. In fact, both templates are used for characters not from soaps, such as Ali G. AnemoneProjectors 00:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning towards support)I am thinking the same as Anemone. A condensed or more compact layout of {{Infobox soap character 2}} would be a good idea so long as it is definitely a full merge --5 albert square (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Like said above, I'd support a merge aslong as all all fields from Infobox 2 are kept, otherwise I'd oppose.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 22:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, I'll only support if none of the fields on {{Infobox soap character 2}} are lost. Wouldn't mind losing the gender-separate fields though, and merging them to cover both again. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - {{Infobox soap character 2}} has fields like "Half-brothers" and "Step-daughters" which seem excessive to me; I'm very active in soap-related articles/templates and I don't think I realized this template existed until now. The gender separation is overkill, as is the separation of "types" like adoptive/half/etc. {{Infobox soap character}} simply has a "sibling" parameter and "Half" or "adopted" can be noted next to it if it applies in a notable way. Version 2 seems to have been expanded by individual users without any general discussion ... it's not exactly harmful, but it makes this template look very trivial/amateurish and will ultimately attract criticism from editors who see little notability with soap-related topics and think they should be slashed.— TAnthonyTalk
I'm also not sure how the layout of Version 2 is more "condensed and compact" as someone suggests above. It seems that this template was originally created for EastEnders characters and then made generic for wider use, but I get the feeling it was kept separate because version 1 is locked and extra parameters cannot be added so easily without discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that birth/death dates like those present in version 2 have been removed from most fictional character templates by consensus. What is the "Breed" parameter and how is it used? The "Introduced by" also seems trivial; the creator may be notable, but not the name of the EP in charge every time the character appears. Anyone interested in that minutae can look at a characters date spans and then look at a producer chronology. I'm a big soap trivia nerd but this kind of thing pushes the limits of being encyclopedic. — TAnthonyTalk 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I say it's more compact, I don't mean in relation to the number of fields but the general layout. It's slightly smaller and just looks better in articles. Also, the "profile" line doesn't appear if there is nothing in that section. Dates of birth and death are relevant for soap operas, though they may not be for other shows, because episodes are set at the time they are broadcast. EastEnders has three articles about animals, so the breed parameter is used in Wellard (a GA), Roly and Willy (EastEnders). We use the introducer name where the creator isn't known. It's often the case that the EP created the character but this isn't often reported. Looking at a chronology won't always work - compare Fatboy (EastEnders), Vanessa Gold and Julie Perkins, for example. I would also like to point out that {{infobox soap character 2}} (originally infobox EastEnders character), was created before {{infobox soap character}}. However, I believe the removal of fields such as half/step family, should be left to a discussion after a merge. Lots of people only supporting this merge if no fields are lost. It should be taken into account that if fields are lost, all these !votes are actually opposing the merge. People want these fields. AnemoneProjectors 12:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. I gotta agree with TAnthony about the excessiveness of Infobox soap character 2. If anything, I feel that it should be merged into Infobox soap character (the original). Definitely agree that both are not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also objected to the second one when it was first created; this is stated somewhere back in my archives. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this discussion is strictly about merging the templates. Any trimming of the fat (and I think that's valid, though I don't personally care much) should be discussed at a later date on the template talk page. PC78 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Merged version available to view in Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per AnemoneProjectors and if it is a full merge. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am against a merge if the Version 2 parameters are kept wholesale; a merge would "protect" these fields in a locked template, making them more difficult to change. I'd rather they were properly challenged/discussed before any such merge, though I know from experience in soap-related topics that we probably wouldn't get enough impartial participation from editors not interested in soap topics. Like I said, I think Version 2 is a bit much (a parameter ["Breed"] for three articles?) but it's harmless enough, I'd rather let its supporters get their way in a portion of articles rather than taint them all.— TAnthonyTalk 05:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be able to change them, in fact first thing I will do is edit the articles affected to remove the duplicated "created by" field, which I will then remove from the template. I gave three examples for "Breed" being used but I don't know if there are more, those are the three I know of. AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Protection is used to guard against vandalism, it does not endorse any additional fields or make it any more difficult to remove them; this requires discussion and concensus, whether the template is protected or not. Otherwise your comment reads like an endorsement of content forking. PC78 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is, Version 2 has obviously been expanded by those who like trivia a little too much, and I doubt there has been much discussion or consensus about it. That's fine. I know that there are few serious editors who pay much attention to soap articles and templates, and with an open template anyone can add whatever they want. Yes, Admins can easily make changed to a locked template, but by flatly merging everything from Version 2 into Version 1, you are forcing us to open up a whole discussion and gain consensus to remove stuff that Version 1 has done fine without. In my opinion, Version 2 has been an easy way for editors to go crazy with this template unmonitored, and though not the nominator's intention, this merge will force all this of undiscussed material into a template which actually has been significantly discussed and modified over time, and confirms better to content policy.
      • To answer some other comments: I don't see any real visual difference as suggested above ("It's slightly smaller and just looks better in articles"), and the "Profile" header in V. 1 can be altered to vanish when unused, as in V. 2. My point about "Breed" is that a parameter only needed for 3 (or even 20) articles out of a few thousand is probably unnecessary; not every detail needs to be noted in an infobox, and the breed is already conveniently noted in the lead sentence of all the fictional dog articles noted above. My biggest objection to V. 2 is the separation of every relationship parameter by gender and by step- and half- etc. Ignoring the trivial aspect for a moment, this becomes an unnecessary waste of space when that section is expanded; a set of five siblings that might take up three lines in a single parameter is now stretched out for an inch-and-a-half because they're each spaced out in their own field. Overkill. I know this isn't a discussion about content, but I am not going along with a wholesale merge. If "people want these fields" so bad they can keep them in a separate template that can be used to make as many articles look amateurish and Soap Opera Digest-ish as you like. — TAnthonyTalk 03:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per TAnthony's comments, as well as mine. If we must merge, Version 2 should definitely be merged into Version 1. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way, a merge means everything is merged, not just one template is redirected to the other. Otherwise it's just TFD, not TFM. AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have read the above arguments and thought about it and previewed some examples. The full merge is fine but once it happens people are going to want the fields that came from from {{infobox soap character 2}} removed, and people currently using that template just don't want to lose them, so we'll just end up with it being recreated. And what's the point of that? It's not like two templates does any actual harm. AnemoneProjectors 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maintaining a fork of the template to placate different camps of editors is not appropriate. It's fairly clear that there needs to be a discussion regarding the fields in these infoboxes, and if a merge forces that discussion then so much the better. The gamut of fields is either necessary or it is not; there is no inbetween. PC78 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that these templates are used for the same purpose and thus are redundant, and I'm a big fan of merging and redirecting redundant and stub material in general, but no matter which side you're on it's clear that there are a considerable amount of differences/somewhat redundant fields between the templates. I don't follow a lot of template merge discussions, is this how it's usually done, merge and then sort out redundancies and excess later? It seems messy, and basically allows anyone to create an alternate template and then disrupt a stable one. Considering that Version 1 was created and adapted out of WikiProject discussions and over time has been updated to conform with any new guidelines from WP:TV, etc, and I don't think Version 2 has been really looked at by the community at large since it started diverging so greatly from Version 1, it doesn't seem to make sense to merge now and discuss later. The deletion discussion for V. 2 from April is an interesting read. Among other things, the argument is made that these two templates do have slightly varying uses as there are apparently differences between US and British soaps, and someone suggests "If the new parameters are needed, seek consensus to add them to the original." Is there not a way to at least assess the value of V. 2 before we throw the two together?— TAnthonyTalk 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to assess? I don't advocate losing anything as a result of this merge, and I certianly don't buy the argument that there are any fundamental differences between US and UK soap characters (ignoring the fact that these templates are used for soap characters from other countries). The outcome of the previous TfD was "Keep for now, with the hope that this can be merged with Template:Infobox soap character in the near future", which is what we're supposed to be discussing here now. PC78 (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tend to agree with AP. Whilst I sympathise with the argument that some of the fields in infobox #2 are excessive, such as death and cousins (is that still in there?), the vast majority are used in a valid fashion. I also disagree with the notion that the large number of fields somehow creates a sense of amateurism. I really fail to see that. What might be pertinent is to simply have a broad discussion on trimming some of the fat. However, I agree with AP that this looks increasingly like the object of the merge is to remove the fields, rather than integrate them, in which case I oppose. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to mention that both templates have the cousins parameter, and for death, #1 has cause of death and #2 has date of death. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the objective of the merge is merely to consolidate the two templates, not to remove anything. It seems that there does need to be a discussion on trimming the fat, but that's not what we shoudl be discussing here. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't look like people want an actual merge, they just want to delete one and keep the other. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 11:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per my comments above. If it can be guaranteed to be a full merge and none of the fields lost then I may change to support, but not at the moment. --5 albert square (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you both support a full merge? PC78 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - That's my vote after seeing where this has headed. It's pointless if either one loses fields, which will certianly happen afterward. Even though it's just for a merge atm, I'd rather vote in favour of protecting what is already there, IMO it doesn't need changing and I don't really see the problem with two..RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 13:49, 17 October 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:Infobox HDM character[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) 03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox HDM character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused character infobox WOSlinker (talk) 21:43, 11 October 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:Oxford Brookes Film Productions[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 speedy delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oxford Brookes Film Productions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a navbox that points only to three redlinked films. The articles for those films were themselves deleted in the past. Nothing points to this template. Auntof6 (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Unused and dependent on three deleted articles, this should fall under WP:CSD G8. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 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:Notsportcycling[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) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated with no foreseeable use ({{Utility cycling}} covers much the same scope of articles). SeveroTC 11:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Deprecated and unused. PC78 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 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:StackImages[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old piece of utility code used solely on an unused old fork of {{BS}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm willing to take your word for it, but what about the handful of transclusions in userspace? (This applies to the template listed below as well.) PC78 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As fas as I can see the userspace instances are test code which, like this template, are going nowhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, though you should probably inform the users affected about this discussion, if you haven't already. PC78 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 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:BSf[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused fork of {{BS}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:51, 11 October 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:Location map 100x100[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map 100x100 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

excessively complicated utility template redundant in functionality to the likes of {{superimpose}}, only half a dozen articlespace transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection so long as current uses can be replaced. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is not redundant, but rather, one of the 450 typical mapper templates for Template:Location_map, except with coordinates ranging from 0-100. Some major problems with {{Superimpose}} are that it does NOT show both the dot-marker & text, and cannot draw a frame around the image, whereas {{Location map 100x100}} can frame an image, with a box, as typical for articles. For users who already know the parameters for {{Location_map}}, there is nothing "excessively complicated" about having extra optional settings, if needed for other articles. Just cut/paste to copy the example, and change a few options. Teenage students should have little trouble with it. See example below for using Location_map_100x100:
Left arm of star is located in 100x100
Left arm of star
Left arm
of star
class=notpageimage|
Marker on star
{{Location map | 100x100
| AlternativeMap = Gold star on blue.gif
| caption = Marker on star
| width=110
| label=Left arm<br>of star
| label-size=30
| background = #BBBBBB
| position=bottom
| lat  = 58.0
| long = 23.9
| mark=Red_pog.svg
| marksize=8
| float=right
}}
I have considered using this 100x100 mapper in more articles, but I did not want to proliferate it as "template-spam" just to prove how it could be used in 500 articles. All totalled, the parent utility Template:Location_map is used in over 10,000 articles, so that should be enough proof that these mapper templates are acceptable to many users. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if there are shortcomings in the parent template then they should be addressed directly, rather than through an obscure fork which operates through a particularly opaque form of subclassing. It is precisely because we have so many minor variants of the same thing (apparently because people fork at the drop of a hat rather than fixing the base code) that people never seem to be able to figure out which of these "image plus marker" templates to use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are not "forks" but rather "flowers" which hang on the same tree, {{Location_map}} as their root-system, and these flowers are not just African daisies, roses, or sunflowerss, but shaped like every nation on Earth with markers plus writing on each type of flower. Or, think of them as pizza pans, where {{Location_map}} is a special pizza oven, to cook pizzas shaped like every nation on Earth (& every U.S. state) with custom writing on each pizza. The base template Location_map provides the root (or oven) to hold the mapper templates, such as {{Location map 100x100}} or {{Location map Italy}}. The variation, as 450 mapper templates, is not due to forking but rather, to people on Earth splitting into over 300 nations plus 50 U.S. states, as over 450 regions on the planet. That could be considered "shortcomings in the parent planet" but don't blame the parent template for the complexity caused by people subdividing the Earth. The mapper templates provide data encapsulation (computer science), so a word like "Argentina" covers the projection-map name, latitude range & longitude range, by merely naming {{Location map Argentina}} as the accessor function, to simplify putting a named dot on that map. No need to change {Location_map} and cause reformatting of 20,000 articles, just focus on 1 of 450 {Location_map_XX} to fix map borders. I'll update the doc subpages to explain the mappers as being accessors not forks. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikid777 - the fact that there's a more widely used template that does something similar doesn't make this redundant as it has some significant advantages over Template:Superimpose. Jan 1922 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 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:Navassa Island Locator[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navassa Island Locator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded location map. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:46, 11 October 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:Howland Island Locator[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Howland Island Locator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded location map. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:46, 11 October 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:Jarvis Island Locator[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jarvis Island Locator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded location map. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:46, 11 October 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:Infobox ksubuilding[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) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overly-specific building infobox with only a dozen or so transclusions; redundant to {{infobox building}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:23, 11 October 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:Infobox protected area2[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 speedy delete per G2. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox protected area2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken test code which was never deployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CSD G2. An unused test that's five years old and hasn't been touched by the creator since. I think we're done here. PC78 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 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:Infobox Aircraft[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 Refactor with no prejudice against renomination in the future. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Time to finally remove this. Long-deprecated piece of legacy code with no articlespace transclusions and only a handful of uses on old talk archives or user sandboxes. Deleting it would obviate the need to have big warning markers and for people to have to keep monitoring it to ensure it isn't being used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The primary reson this is being kept is so that the template is visible when looking at the histories of aircraft aritcles. Without the template, it's quite a mess when viewing the page. See this diff for an example. Please be considerate of editors having to search the histories, Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While the fallout there is unfortunate, we're talking about a period of two years there. What's more, other changes to template functionality will inevitably result in old diffs being broken. The utility of having a slightly clearer page layout on diffs dating back to 2008 is outweighed by the burden of having to indefinitely keep monitoring this template to ensure it isn't being used. One alternative would be to convert the template into a wrapper which calls the new templates directly; this would perhaps be even better, as it would mean that people could actually use the template again as the underlying code would be the same as the new system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the changes you suggest allow the template to display correctly when viewing the histories? (I honestly don't know a thing about how it works.) I actually do use the histories quite often, and not having the working template would be a bit more than "unfortunate". The previous template was in use for several years, and in several thousand articles, so it actually does crop up alot. I do understand it's not an inconvinence for those who don't regulary check the histories of aircraft articles, but it is for those of us who do. Compared to that usefulness, the "burden of having to indefinitely keep monitoring this template to ensure it isn't being used" seems quite small to me. - BilCat (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, conversion to a wrapper would allow the old diffs to work. Indeed, if done properly, you wouldn't be able to tell that they weren't using the new system directly through looking at them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be involved in getting that done? - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll knock up a sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:28, 11 October 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:Aircraft-met[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aircraft-met (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated article-generation tool which is long out of service (as evidenced by its use of the long-deprecated {{infobox aircraft}}). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:52, 11 October 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:Infobox Airbus airliners[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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Airbus airliners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, presumably deprecated bit of navigational code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:49, 11 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_11&oldid=1140406897"