Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12

Template:Tfdnotice2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfdnotice2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Tfdnotice2 with Template:Tfdnotice.
This template existed to provide the option of a level-two header instead of a level-one header. That option has now been built into Tdfnotice as a parser function. This template is therefore now redundant. Bsherr (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits of Bsherr to these and related templates and their documentation. I think he has made some good contributions, and support this merge proposal. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems logical. Airplaneman ✈ 16:39, 16 August 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:WildlifeofIndia

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) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a substitute of Template:Wildlife of India, which is a better template for using on articles due to its size. The nominated template dose not follow the code of other wildlife templates such as Template:Wildlife of India, Template:Wildlife of Pakistan, Template:Wildlife of Canada, Template:Wildlife of Bangladesh and Template:Wildlife of Sri Lanka. I request its deletion because it will never be used effectively on wikipedia. Farjad0322 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Wildlife of India. The template creator need not have come here. Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no need for two, and Template:Wildlife of India is more compact. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Farjad0322 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 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:Navigators

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) 06:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template and won't be used in the future as the team folded. Severo^TC 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is orphaned with no foreseeable usage. Airplaneman ✈ 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure could be useful if the articles were linked to it, similar to Template:Scuderia Ferrari in Formula One, but I'm not sure WilliamF1two (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates are similar to those in Category:Football squad templates i.e. they are for current squads. If we were to make templates for every team and every season, there would be a mess of templates at the bottom of thousands of articles, many with duplicated links anyway. There's no will or consensus to do this but rather to keep the templates for the current season only. Severo^TC 06:03, 16 August 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:TUP

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) 06:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template and will not be used as team has folded. Severo^TC 11:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is orphaned with no foreseeable usage. Airplaneman ✈ 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure see comments on Template:Navigators WilliamF1two (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, no one is interested in keeping squad nav boxes for previous seasons. Severo^TC 11:32, 19 August 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:Palmares note

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. —fetch ·comms 01:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palmares note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Severo^TC 11:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is orphaned with no foreseeable usage. Airplaneman ✈ 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless as it could just be typed in the article if really needed. WilliamF1two (talk) 21:39, 15 August 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:Eponymous category

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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eponymous category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Category:Eponymous_categories -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The rationale for Category:Eponymous categories and Template:Eponymous category are not the same. If you want to CFD Category:Eponymous categories, that should not affect Template:Eponymous category. The template creates a standard format including using a space for the sort order.—Markles 10:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template simply places it in Category:Eponymous categories. It that category does not exist there is no need for it. If the CfD for Category:Eponymous categories decides on a keep the template is still not needed since it performs a very simple function that does not need a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It places an article in a category of its own name.
For example, 111th United States Congress gets put in Category:111th United States Congress by using: [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}| ]]
—Markles 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that need a template? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. Is there some significant reason to use this template? Why can't users just merely enter/cut-and-paste "[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}| ]]"? I don't see any significant benefit since that and "{{Eponymous category}}" are roughly about the same amount of characters to type, give-or-take a few. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether or not the category is deleted, this should be, per Zzyzx11 above. It just doesn't seem a particularly useful template. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no idea why this should have been linked to the CfD discussion, but yes, this template seems entirely pointless.--Kotniski (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, this cat is useful on wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Substitute and Delete Keep~~ Substitute and Delete - ~~Unless someone can explain why it's superior to the simple WP:Magic words above that do the same.~~ --Bsherr (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which magic word(s), specifically do you mean?—Markles 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{PAGENAME}}, as in [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]], correct? --Bsherr (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I see what you're saying. It's more than that. It uses that PLUS a sort order key of " " (blank space). So it's: [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}| ]]. That way it sets a standard for the sort key.—Markles 03:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, indeed. So the creator is making it easier to correctly list the article in its eponymous category, which usually isn't done anyway. Why not include it in the eponymous categories section of WP:SORTKEY? --Bsherr (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, why not, provided it's incorporated as above. --Bsherr (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If people find some convenience in using it, then I suppose it's OK as long as it's subst'ed - but if transcluded, then it comes up against the general problem you always have when categories are generated by templates - the maintenance tools can't cope with them. What happens if the article is renamed and the category isn't, or vice versa? (Fairly unlikely with eponymous cats, I suppose, but then there's hardly any gain in using this template in the first place - if you're going to teach people to use this template in this situation, it would be easier just to teach them that the right sort key for an eponymous article is a space.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's true too. --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that you make a valid point that if the article gets moved (renamed), then it will break the category.—Markles 01:30, 21 August 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:Sobneutral

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. —fetch ·comms 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used anywhere, redundant to other templates such as {{Uw-npov1}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TenPoundHammer's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I'm not so sure that it would show up in "what links here", though, as it is probably substituted. Airplaneman ✈ 03:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to uw-npov series. But Airplaneman is correct. --Bsherr (talk) 16:53, 19 August 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.