Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28[edit]

Template:Fay's Drugs plastic shopping bag from the late 1980's/early 1990's.[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. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fay's Drugs plastic shopping bag from the late 1980's/early 1990's. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; unnecessary. Jared Preston (talk) 19:10, 28 March 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:Langlink[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) 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems self-explanatory - the template itself says Experimental template: don't not use! and has a single article space transclusion. -Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 28 March 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:Infobox weblog[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) 20:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox website}}, with which I recently replaced the few transclusions; hence orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Not that I don't generally agree with this process of consolidation, but I'd expect to be informed about template I create being taken to TfD, please.) This was (IIRC) originally intended to fill out some of the more biographical aspects of weblogs, such as political affiliation: edits such as this remove that detail from the infobox. I'm not opposed to a merge here, but that should be done properly in advance rather than through fait accompli edits which leave other editors with the leg work of re-adding lost data. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The removal was deliberate, as uncited trivia. When I brought a load of templates here, people told me I should orphan and speedy them. Can't please all the people all of the time... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I'm guilty of it occasionally myself, it's generally not a good idea to orphan templates pre-nom unless they were objectively redundant (such as plain utility templates). In this case the question of whether {{infobox website}} needs a political affiliation parameter (along with potentially some others) was begged by removing it from all the transclusions. It would be best to undo those merges for now. At the very least, a temporary conversion into a wrapper which takes the affiliation parameter and adds the contents to the type parameter in the parent would seem sensible, as otherwise very little of the what in a weblog article is really being presented in its infobox (type: "blog", along with loads of trivia on foundation and content licensing). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 19 March 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) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a weblog should be treated more like journalism than a website, so things like political affiliation are important is a blog is political, for example. I say keep the template, and start a talk page discussion about what should be included on it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 09:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I checked the articles in which this was orphaned, and only a few were using the political affiliation field. we can always add this to {{infobox website}} if it is important enough to not just append into the "type" parameter (e.g., type = liberal blog instead of type = blog). Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 5 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28&oldid=1091625150"