Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1

Template:Infobox Parish church

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) 19:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Parish church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In continuation of the two nominations from 25 September, another template that has been merged with the more commonly used Template:Infobox church, and is redundant to it. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 8 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.

Template:Tfd-tiny

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 and redirect for convenience to tfd-inline Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-tiny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Tfd-inline}}, which is even more petite. And {{Tfd-inline}} is being used at least sometimes. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually the output of {{Tfd-tiny}} is shorter. It just says "see TfD", as opposed to "The template (name) is being considered for deletion". I used {{Tfd-tiny}} recently for a template that was transcluded into the middle of article text, because {{Tfd-inline}} seemed too intrusive. Still, {{Tfd-tiny}} is somewhat redundant to {{Tfd-inline}}, and it lacks the option to use a section header name for the discussion that is different from the template name (a useful thing when nominating multiple templates at once). I wonder if they could be merged. I'm no wizard with templates, but I created a test page where I think I've successfully combined the two so that the smaller version is used if "tiny=yes" is added. If this is acceptable, then we could update {{Tfd-inline}} and either delete or redirect {{Tfd-tiny}}. --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. It is shorter. I just looked at the template pages, where it is longer, but upon transclusion it is shorter indeed. I'll have a look at the code you propose. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Let's make that {{Tfd-inline}}, and delete {{Tfd-tiny}}. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But let's use the old documentation page, just add an example with the tiny parameter. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely the old documentation with modifications. The doc page I created for the test version was strictly to show examples of the test, not intended to replace the existing documentation. --RL0919 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, a merge (to the shorter version) seems to be a no-brainer here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the links for {{Tfd-tiny}}, it isn't referenced anywhere that would be difficult to remove, and by its nature it doesn't stay transcluded anywhere for an extended period. So there's no need for a redirect, and no need for the template now that {{Tfd-inline}} has been updated. --RL0919 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Thanks to RL0919 for the excellent job. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 2 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.

Template:Full Movie Credits

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) 22:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Full Movie Credits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An attempt at a new film infobox, which has apparently not been used since ~~its removal from~~ the author's attempt to use it in What We Do Is Secret (film).[1] --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, largely redundant to {{Infobox film}}, and apparently abandoned (no talk and no edits since creation in August 2008). --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have been created as a fork of {{Infobox film}} and is now unused. PC78 (talk) 22:48, 1 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.

Template:Integral economics

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) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copy of Template:Integral thought — goethean ॐ 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not all these people were economists either. --JaGa^talk 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Template identifies individuals instrumental to Integral Thought. - gospelnous (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate template. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Integral economics is also up at Cfd. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked over half the people listed in the template, and absolutely none of them were described as economists in their articles. --RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Yesterday the editor who created this template created a new template, {{Integral economics1}}, with different but related content. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 8 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.

Template:Latest stable software release/WeeChat

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 no consensus to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/WeeChat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used exclusively for a non-notable product that is being deleted. ^Bongo_matic 06:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if article deleted, Keep if not. --JaGa^talk 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the article was kept. --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Bongomatic, you may wish to check the "What links here" link for this template as it is also in use by the Comparison article. WeeChat has also not been deleted yet so even if the template did not have multiple uses it would be premature to list it here. Please refer to the rxIRC TfD for more information on how these template function and are used by Comparison articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As discussed in the TfD for the rxIRC template, this series of templates does not depend on each listed product having its own article. If this particular product is so unimportant that it should not even be listed at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, then it should be deleted there. Then this template would be an orphan and I expect there would be little objection to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 4 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.

Template:Lifetime Entertainment

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) 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lifetime Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Lifetime bought by A&E; no reason for independent Lifetime template. Shortride (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant articles have been incorporated into {{A&E Television Networks}}, leaving this template unused. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 6 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.