Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21

edit

Template:Strictly Come Dancing professional dancers

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strictly Come Dancing professional dancers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is unlikely to be used in articlespace due to accessibility or WP:OR issues. Should be userfied, moved to WikiProject space or deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, orphaned template. Kind of hard to understand too, especially with those numbers at the bottom... Axem Titanium (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template was in use in Strictly Come Dancing, until it was unilaterally removed in a huge and undiscussed blanket-revert, along with a lot of sourced prose. There is no original research involved: although there is no one source which substantiates the whole table, it is a simple reformulation of material presented and referenced elsewhere in that article, and in more detail in the articles on each individual series, all of which are clearly sourced. It is a much clearer means of presenting the information than the messy wikitable it replaced, and also conveys more information, although none which is not repeated in a more accessible format elsewhere in the article, which leaves no serious accessibility issues (the wikitable it replaces is also extremely inaccessible to screen readers). Happy‑melon 14:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with a flat list (e.g., * name1, seasons *name2, seasons)? The image generated by this template is 900px wide and impossible to read on a smaller display. It is entirely unreadable by screen readers. The current wikitable may not be good, but this is even worse. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what you want to achieve. The article should have a suitable block of sourced prose containing all this relevant information; the table in whatever format is merely a convenient summary of information that's already available in a totally-accessible format. As such, the accessibility of that summary is of less importance; and being able to convey all the information clearly and efficiently of greater import. Think of it in the same way as images in an article: if an article becomes lacking because you can't see the image, then there's a problem with the article, not the image. Happy‑melon 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the same content is presented and referenced elsewhere in the article, then this template is simply redundant. All the more reason to delete it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way the filmography and awards tables should be removed from all our featured actor biographies, because they repeat material that's presented in prose elsewhere? Repeated information is not automatically redundant, as long as the manner of presentation is separately useful. Having awards or bibliographies presented in a more consolidated format is a useful summary; if people need more detail, or if they can't access the non-prose format, they should be able to (with greater effort) find the necessary information in the prose. Happy‑melon 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factually, no. Not every role played is covered in evert biography articles, nor are every award, or more to the point, notes sections and television program episodes mentioned in the main body of the article. This particular template is effectively impossible to read. The bottom line legend is illegible and the colors are a problem visually. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So change the colours? Or explain what's wrong with them, and I'll change them. The x axis is only there because it's impossible to remove AFAIK; it's not supposed to be read.
Above all, I'm just not seeing how this summary is any different to a filmography, award table, bibliography, sports team table, or various other non-prose elements that we routinely insert in articles. Why is this element redundant (either in the article as it currently stands or how a perfect article would look) but one of those other elements not? Happy‑melon 14:28, 25 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:Bullseealso

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) 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Few of these are actually useful anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 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:Long way

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) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long way (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is nearly an identical copy of the template Template:Boorman McGregor Travel, with the exception that the other template has one more name. It's repetitive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 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:Wdy

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) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

trivial text substitution: by my count this saves exactly two characters over the equivalent in the simple case the two in the advanced case. TMTOWTDI is not user-friendly, and the interwiki link has a more appropriate name anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 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:Rassilon Stories

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) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rassilon Stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and Template:Rassilon stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template. Only one actual Rassilon story exists, the other two-parter features a character who has been subject to debate, and may not even be the same Rassilon, so is original research. magnius (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Along with the reasons given above as the storyline of the show currently stands it is unlikely that will be any Rassilon stories in the future - though with this series one should never say never. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to add the second version of this template created by the same editor. We don't need two versions of the same item. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 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:Cat see also commons

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) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat see also commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple text substitution; only a handful of transclusions. Obviated by the likelihood that appropriate commons cats will have shared parent categories that could be linked to instead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 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:Wpd-catlist-up

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) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wpd-catlist-up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused generator which feeds {{catlist}}, itself at TfD. No practical use on the project at this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 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:Multi-Doctor stories

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) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multi-Doctor stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no real use for this navbox, which consists largely of dubious inclusions (Time Crash and Dimensions in Time are charity productions; Journey's End sees David Tennant playing two versions of his Doctor only; The Next Doctor for obvious reasons), audio plays and novels. It is simply redundant. U-Mos (talk) 17:49, 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:Peisl

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) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hardcoded text output, one transclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the template: No objection to pasting into the single page that uses it, followed by deletion. I created it because at that point, help pages on Wikipedia were copies of the corresponding pages on Meta and, as the Meta page Help:Section used the template, a copy of it was needed on Wikipedia. Now that WP help pages are separately maintained, there is no need to keep this. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Peisl is also orphaned now, so I've nominated that for deletion that as well. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:37, 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:Charmed episode

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) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charmed episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single transclusion on one list article. There are more widely-used alternatives which would be better used for any future uses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:32, 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:Catlist

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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't how we link to or present categories in general, and categorising through templates is discouraged because it breaks HotCat etc. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 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:Cms-catlist

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) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cms-catlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be a user tool to extract categories from somewhere and reformat them. No transclusions and the documentation gives no suggestion as to what it's indended for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 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:I

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) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to have been historically used by its author as a tool to manually indent talk page posts or template documentation paragraphs for the sake of aesthetics. It doesn't fulfil any practical purpose beyond {{indent}} and appears not to have seen any new use for a couple of years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to {{indent}} and unused --Jubilee♫clipman 23:22, 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:The Gloria Record

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) 04:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Gloria Record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redlink band, articles are up for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 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:Right35

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) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Right35 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary formatting template, no current transclusions or clear use case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 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:Ctempsection

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) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

temporary scratch box used during a migration last year. Won't be needed in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 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:Charmed navigation

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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charmed navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Unnecessary hard-coded instance of {{episode navigation}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:54, 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:Demon

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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Text substitution which encourages overlinking (there's only one target article). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 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:Usage div

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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usage div (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For segregating off template documentation we have the superior {{documentation}}. The secondary purpose of providing an arbitrary background colour in said documentation sections is not actually necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 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:Unit-attn

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 Convert to a cleanup tag Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit-attn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template's only function is to add an article to Category:Articles requiring unit attention, which you could just do directly without a template..... or you could just, you know, fix the unit problem yourself. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one would be a bad idea. The template is placed near the problem. I forget the exact class of problems I used this for, but a unit-expert would come along and fix them up pretty quickly. If it's unused (by which I mean nobody uses it - not currently not in use) then I have no objection (except historical interest) to it being dumped, along with the category. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 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:Ibull

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) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only in a couple of the author's talk comments. Unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 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:Ibull2

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) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ibull2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 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:Matt Henshaw

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) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matt Henshaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one blue link, to an article presently at AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 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:NWBL

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) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I mean, it's kind of cool to use {{NWBL|Salt}} instead of {{•}}[[Salt]] but this isn't what templates are for. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating a full protected template used all over the place until I kill all the uses. It took me long enough to find this use. Nominate that separately if you want, but Template:Bull2 (a redirect) has such powerful uses such as this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 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:Awde Losi 2001

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) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Awde Losi 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With this edit and this edit, this template is no longer needed (and is possibly just a T3). The Arshavir usage was particularly completely cryptic to new users. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 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:Johnny Test

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) 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johnny Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with only a link to the main article and two more articles. Not everything needs a navbox. LoЯd ۞pεth 02:32, 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:Champaign–Urbana expressways

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 author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Champaign–Urbana expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox for three freeways in metropolitan area of 210,275. Dough4872 02:15, 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:Dubuque Expressways

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 author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dubuque Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Needless navbox for roads in small metropolitan area. Dough4872 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Its not "needless" at all, I don't see any policy that conflicts with this template. Dubuque might not be a massive Metropolitan area, but its road network is complex to the point where a template could easily be utilized and thats why I created this one. Point me to a policy/guideline/project rule that says, "the size of a city determines if a template is notable" and i'll gladly go along with deletion and apologize for all the trouble I have caused by creating two innocent templates. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dubuque template only links together four different roads and two of them redirect to somewhere other than the target article (i.e. U.S. Route 61 in Iowa redirects to U.S. Route 61). The Champaign-Urbana template only has three articles. A navbox for roads in a metropolitan area is only useful if it is a large area and serves as navigation between several articles rather than a few. Dough4872 03:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment: I have a number of concerns with this template. First of all, the title of the navbox violates the MOS; it shouldn't be in title case. Next, the title is misleading. It says "Freeways & Expressways in the Dubuque Area", but Dubuque Area links to Dubuque. Now, when I think of the Dubuque area, I include East Dubuque and Grant County, Wisconsin. Neither of which are included in the template. Next, this template is missing at least one expressway in Dubuque itself (IA 32). I haven't been to Dubuque for a couple years, so there may be more. Next, there is a set of US Highway shields for Iowa which isn't being used. In the interest of disclosure, I created them, so of course I want to see them in use. Lastly, there is no sense that any of the streets which the routes run upon are notable. Instead, US 61 and US 151 are each linked three times while US 20 and US 52 are each linked once. If this template stays, it's going to need a lot of work. —Fredddie™ 03:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for not using your shields as I did not know of their existence. Last I checked Iowa 32 did not meet the definition of an expressway, but I will have to check again. I thought I linked dubuque to the metropolitan statistical area page, I will have to check. This template is based off the Milwaukee and Chicago ones, which by default include expressway names as well. Please give me a day to make revisions, and I think this all will be sorted out.Marcusmax(speak) 05:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay I'll update you to the work done thus far, the shields you created have been implemented and barring this passing TFD the template name will be moved to conform with MOS. Iowa Highway 32 is not an expressway, as its local name suggests it is actually an arterial road given the fact it does not have partial access of control and all its intersections are at-grade. I did determine that I left out an expressway on the Wisconsin side (Route 35), which I will add to the template. I figure I could easily divide the template into different sections by state as well to better its use a a navigational tool. Repairs will be going on over the course of an hour and so... i'll contact you if you guys haven't read this already and we will go from there. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having actually been to Dubuque, I have to refute some of your claims here. There are no controlled-access freeways anywhere in Dubuque, you have to go into Wisconsin to find one. Yes, there are exits in Dubuque, but within a mile of each exit you will find an at-grade intersection. Does that mean none of the highways are eligible for inclusion now? Also, Iowa 32 is a four-lane divided highway that sees 10,000 cars per day at and it's not included. Yet, US 151 south of the US 61 interchange, sees only 5000 cars per day and it is included. Wisconsin Highway 35/Illinois Route 35, when it's not overlapping US 61/US 151 or Wis 11, is hardly worth mentioning. It's a two-lane highway that meanders through the hillside. I'm still having trouble seeing what your criteria are for inclusion. To me, there is no consistency here. —Fredddie™ 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I re-designed it, improved the links, flow, navigation ability and usefulness. If kept the new template that confroms to MOS would then be moved to the proper page other then that I think this is a good template now. I apologize for the Champaign-Urbana one; sometime I don't know what posses me lol. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The template still looks messy. All the shields in it add too much clutter and the spacing is very awkward. In addition, it appears Dubuque is too small of an area and has too few roads to justify a navbox. Dough4872 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I want to seriously say: "delete it because all versions of it I've seen have been ugly" but I won't. Seriously, the layout is poor, the contents are cherry-picked with a region that size, and it makes it look like Dubuque is in three states, when it's in one. Please scrap this template. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I was willing to allow this template to improve, but it seems to have worsened with each edit. The criteria for inclusion are inconsistent, and it really doesn't add anything to the articles in which it sits. —Fredddie™ 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete scope is too narrow. --Rschen7754 05:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Note to Admin - I suggest an admin just delete this now, no need to put editors through anymore hassle here. I will create a "mass transit" template in my sandbox as a better way of showing regional transit and then present it to the pertinent project to make sure if it useful. This won't happen again. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:03, 22 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 talk:Editnotices/Page/Lego Universe

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) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Lego Universe

Inappropriate guidance; Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not superceeded by those of an organization.  Chzz  ►  01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if someone violates their non-disclosure agreement, that doesn't impact us. Plus the legalese (even if minor) and awaiting Lego Group approval is seriously chilling. A stronger focus on WP:RS would suffice instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that this would fall somewhere in WP:ORIGINAL. LEGO prohibits the disclosure of information obtained through this Beta Test to third parties, and none of this information has been published by them or any other reliable source, and can only therefore be obtained through being a Beta Tester and "researching" in the game. I'll update the proposed edit notice to reflect that. EWikist (Talk to me) 19:19, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_21&oldid=1146673688"