Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18

[edit]


History & Populations

[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 Histpop and Historical populations, but keep USCensusPop Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Histpop and Template:USCensusPop with Template:Historical populations.
Template:Histpop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:USCensusPop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Historical populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in June 2008. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Historical populations#Merger proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep USCensusPop, but delete Histpop. The USCensusPop template has separate value from the generic template; being specific to the US Census data series, it helps the user insert appropriate data in an appropriate format with a minimum of errors. The generic template requires more sophistication on the part of the user.
    The Histpop template, on the other hand, is basically an incomplete version of the generic Historical populations template and it is used in only a handful of articles; I don't see a need for two generic templates for the same purpose. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (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.
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) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox cadet college (Pakistan) with Template:Infobox cadet college.
Template:Infobox cadet college (Pakistan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox cadet college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Infobox cadet college. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (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.
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 into whatever template name makes the most sense. However, it appears no one is willing to actually perform the merger.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wireless systems with Template:Mobile telecommunications standards.
Template:Wireless systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mobile telecommunications standards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in April 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Wireless systems. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Substantial sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created to support editor's position that sources used to support notability on AfDs/DRVs were insufficient, despite vast majority of editors disagreeing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linking to WP:N is not the concern. The concern is that this template covers the exact same issue as {{Notability}}, with an extra clause added to focus on the need for non-triviality of the references. There is no situation in which this tag would be appropriate that could not already be tagged with {{Notability}}. That is not true of, for example, {{Primary sources}} or {{Unreferenced}}, which describe citation issues that may apply even when a subject is obviously notable. (And even if it were true that those templates were unnecessary forks, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Primary sources}} or {{Unreferenced}} also cover the exact same thing that WP:N does, except they don't specifically link to WP:N or mention it. Articles with only primary sources don't pass WP:N, in the same way articles with only sources with trivial mentions pass WP:N. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a completely valid argument in this case, as I am showing other maintenance templates which are being used for exactly the same the same purpose. So it seems my previous belief about the WP:N mention still holds true.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator, User:Milowent and User:Billbowery are competing on my list. Milowent is in the lead.--Otterathome (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2009 (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.
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) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The links are no longer useful because most of the named Ent characters were merged into Ent, except for Treebeard. It is transcluded in only two pages: Ent (which is where most of the links lead) and Treebeard. This has been discussed at Template talk:Ents and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Template:Ents where the opinion has been unanimous. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Battle of Košare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a long history of unsourced changes as part of the Battle of Košare article, itself a battlegound in a long-running propaganda war, and its current content is (allegedly) supported only by partisan and non-english sources. The template is not used by any article at present and is only ever likely to be used in one article (Battle of Košare) therefore it is not required. Having part of the article embedded in a single-purpose template serves no purpose other than to make it harder to patrol unsourced claims. Timberframe (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for an abandoned proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trent Willmon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles for a template. None of the singles is notable enough for its own article, and there're only three articles to link among, each of which is already interlinked to the other. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:27, 18 October 2009 (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.
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 subst and delete. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integral economics1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created during the earlier TfD for Template:Integral economics. It is not the same content as that earlier template (which was deleted). However, it only has a single use, on the article for Integral economics. The articles it links to are all either about economics subjects that do not discuss Integral theory, or about Integral theory subjects with little or no mention of economics, which are interlinked via the {{Integral thought}} template. So it seems unlikely that this template would be useful on any other page. Templatespace should not be used to create single-use tables. Therefore, I recommend that it be substituted into the article and the template deleted. RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (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.
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) 04:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andrew Howard Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2009 (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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa L. Williams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two of these templates. I'm not clear on which is being used, but there is no reason for there to be two of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2009 (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.
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) 04:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa Williams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two of these templates for Vanessa Williams. I'm not sure which one is the one in use, but there is no reason for two of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2009 (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.
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) 04:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arvind Swamy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2009 (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.
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) 04:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Josh Server (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, individual actor templates lead to excessive template usage. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As discussed on WT:ACTOR and in several recent TfDs, actor navboxes would create clutter on movie/show articles. This particular template is currently used only on the actor's own article, but it includes shows where he appeared only as a guest in a single episode. Imagine an actor navbox appearing for every guest star on the article for a long-running show. There could be more navboxes than article content! --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2009 (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.
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) 04:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jolie movies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is orphaned and unused. To my knowledge, it has not been used on an article at all. Beyond that, actor filmography templates are not used per consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew Degnan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for works of a non notable author - apparently created by that author. Unused. noq (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2009 (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.

Old ABA Templates

[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 as redundant to {{ABA Teams}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABA Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABA Red (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABA White Arenas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The current American Basketball Association no longer has a Red, White or Blue Conferences, they simply have divisions. Ergo, they are no longer needed. (Oops forgot to sign my post yesterday) Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (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.
[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) 04:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SEC Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Ten Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big 12 Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes should be used to connect pages that have a meaningful relationship, but the cities where schools in a particular athletic conference are located do not have a meaningful relationship. These navboxes may be useful for students and alumni planning road trips to their school's "away" games, but usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion of content and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. NOTE: The Big East Cities template was nominated on 10 October; this nomination covers other templates of the same type. Orlady (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wing Commander character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Not needed anymore. Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 2point4 Children (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan, unused, we have Infobox episode for episodes. Seems more like a test page. Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (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.