Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

Template:Fukuyama Masaharu

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 if there is a reason to, then someone can boldly move it, or discuss further on the talk page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fukuyama Masaharu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two actual articles exist here in terms of its relationship to the artist. Everything else is red linked or linked to a disambiguation page or other unrelated article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Masaharu Fukuyama (correct name order). It looks like an editor is slowly adding articles, so the redlink problem is being resolved. --DAJF (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move. If the links are incorrect, you should fix them, not nominate the template for deletion. I can see no valid reason for deletion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to fix them, it would just create more red links, thus even more reason to delete this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed all the misleading links to disambiguation pages, and, as of the time of writing, there are 11 valid links in this template, with the number increasing steadily day by day. --DAJF (talk) 15:09, 11 February 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:Denmark at the 2010 Winter Olympics

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) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark at the 2010 Winter Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox simply duplicates the set of links of athlete names found on the Denmark at the 2010 Winter Olympics article. The idea of navigating from one athlete bio to another is perhaps a good-faith idea, but has not been thought out. It simply isn't scalable to add this kind of navbox to the ~3000 articles in the "Country at the year Olympics" series. For Denmark in 2010, there are 18 names, so it is manageable, but it would be pointless to have a navbox like this for all the instances where a nation had only 1 or 2 competitors (which has happened many times), and it would be a wall of text for instances where a nation has several tens or hundreds of names (which has also happened many times). It would be very inconsistent to have these kinds of templates only for "nicely sized" teams instead of all or none. There is a good reason why we've never created navboxes like this in all the years of WP:WikiProject Olympics work. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrwsc. Basement12 (T.C) 17:33, 10 February 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:Buffalo State Bengals football coach navbox

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 nomination withdrawn Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buffalo State Bengals football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation box with only redlinks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per reasons listed at WP:CFBCOACH. Just because it contains redlinks right now doesn't mean the coaches won't be made sometime in the near or distant future. Inevitably, someone will make those pages and it would be of interest to see where else they've coached. WikiProject College football is working on the overwhelming task of creating every single coach's bio (from FBS down to NAIA), which will take a long time, so there's no reason to delete this navbox now only to necessitate its creation again later on. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No longer simply redlinks. Move to withdraw TfD since that was the concern raised. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on WP:CFBCOACH, just create stub articles for the coaches listed in the template. Otherwise, it is meaningless as is. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jrcla2--Yankees10 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I am glad to see it is no longer orphaned, and articles are being created. I did my part and created one for Paul Shaffner. I now gladly withdraw my nomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:09, 6 February 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:ScreenplayDB film

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, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ScreenplayDB film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created by Sven Erixon (talk · contribs) to spam screenplaydb.com (see contributions) across multiple film articles' "External links" sections. Erik (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, the template endorses linking to a website that displays copyrighted works, the scripts owned by entities other than the website owner. This is explicitly forbidden per WP:ELNEVER. Erik (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — site is brand-new, of no notability, and of no known accuracy. Also may be a substantial copyright violation. DKqwerty (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found the same as DKqwerty. Pirate^Argh!!1! 05:39, 6 February 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:IrishRdocu

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) 02:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related Republicianism see also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishA and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishM Gnevin (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a sub-template of {{IrishR}}, which is also up for deletion here. Scolaire (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like the ones below. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - factual, accurate and all core aspects of Irish Republicanism, a fact the nominator seems utterly illinformed about. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: FearÉIREANN is the pen-name of User:jtdirl, the creator of this template. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is one of a collections of idiocentric "series" templates that neither form a series nor server as meaningful navigation templates. I'm grateful to Gnevin for being the one who finally plucked up the nerve to nominate these for deletion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This series of templates may have started out as a good idea, but they have grown bigger and bigger, to become wannabe-categories. Their position as sidebars and high-contrast colouring makes them dominate any article they are placed on, becoming a sort of branding stamp, which has the unwelcome effect of dividing Irish political history into simplistic blocs which do not reflect the complex interactions and overlaps between the strands.
I would not object to linking some of these articles through smaller, unobtrusive, collapsible templates at the bottom of articles; but any such templates should be much more tightly-focused, and much less prominent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 9 February 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:IrishN

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. This discussion is closely related to several discussions from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 2, which all have similar nominations and discussions. Consensus is these templates are too broad and lack well-defined inclusion criteria. No prejudice against editors creating more narrowly defined navigation templates or placing articles in appropriate categories. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related Nationalism see also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishA and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishM Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - intrusive and too general to be really useful. Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like the others below. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons outlined here. ~Asarlaí 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this template is deleted, its articles should be put into categories with similar headings (example: Category:Irish nationalism, Category:Irish nationalist organisations, Category:Irish nationalist publications, Category:Irish nationalist symbols, etc). ~Asarlaí 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - logical, factual, and all contents directly related to Irish Nationalism. (Gnevin obviously doesn't know what the history of Irish Nationalism is if they think its contents are related to the topic.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: FearÉIREANN is the pen-name of User:jtdirl, the creator of this template. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is one of a collections of idiocentric "series" templates that neither form a series nor server as meaningful navigation templates. I'm grateful to Gnevin for being the one who finally plucked up the nerve to nominate these for deletion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This series of templates may have started out as a good idea, but they have grown bigger and bigger, to become wannabe-categories, and . Their position as sidebars and high-contrast colouring makes them dominate any article they are placed on, becoming a sort of branding stamp, which has the unwelcome effect of dividing Irish political history into simplistic blocs which do not reflect the complex interactions and overlaps between the strands.
I would not object to linking some of these articles through smaller, unobtrusive, collapsible templates at the bottom of articles; but any such templates should be much more tightly-focused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seconding Asarlaí's comment somehow: the current template might not fulfill encyclopaedic standards, but it's useful - so it rather should be altered than plainly deleted. • Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون) ^wtf? • 15:29, 14 February 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:TLS-H

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 pending replacement of existing transclusions. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLS-H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. Only 8 transclusions, which can be replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Yes these can be replaced, but the replacement is not easy, in fact there are only two editors who are doing the replacement, which is included in a major redesign and revamp of the Timeline of spaceflight, the new standards being laid out here. Nominating this just rushes us and will degrade the quality instead of doing it right the first time. I am an administrator and will be able to delete this template when all instances have been properly replaced. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Timeline Status. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it cannot be replaced as easily as as the nominator implies. Also, given the structure of the articles that it is/was used on, deleting the template would cause serious display issues with old revisions of these articles. --G W… 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:TLS-H (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was originally used to transclude a standardised table header onto articles that comprised the timeline of spaceflight. It was replaced with Template:TLS-H2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in early 2009 as part of a major overhaul of the table format. As a result of this overhaul, the newer template is not backwards compatible, and each table has to be completely rewritten in order to make it compatible with the newer header. We've been using this rewrite as a chance to improve the overall quality of the articles, and therefore it is taking a while. If you look at WP:TLS/S, articles which are listed as being in the "new" (green) format are using TLS-H2, others are either using TLS-H, or a hardcoded header. These will be replaced in due course, however this will not be done by the end of this TFD. I would advise that the old template be kept anyway, as deleting it would make the page histories of articles that it was used on unreadable. --G W… 17:40, 5 February 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:List of Anime Ep TV

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Anime Ep TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant. Only transcluded once in article namespace and a handful of times in user space. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redundant to what? Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:55, 5 February 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:CGNDB

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) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, redundant, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redundant to what? Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deprecated in favor of {{Cite cgndb}} as stated in the banner on the template page, and no longer used. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 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:Coord2dec

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 Magioladitis (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord2dec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant, virtually unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is used in the proposed new version of {{Location map}}. It's not entirely equivalent to {{decdeg}}, as the now no-longer transcluded documentation explains, and it would be extremely unwieldy to replace it with {{decdeg}}. Zocky | picture popups 08:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redundant to what? Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is deprecated in favor of {{Decdeg}}, as stated in the banner on the template talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to a subtemplate of {{Location map}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – {{Decdeg}} includes all the functionality of {{Coord2dec}}. See the last example on the doc page. (Full disclosure: I'm the author of Decdeg). –droll [chat] 03:30, 19 February 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:Switch

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 Soft redirect to prevent use, but point people to the equivalent parser function. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated. <200 links+transclusions, <50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disable, then point to the help page on how to use parser functions as a soft redirect. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the IP. The difference between parserfunctions and templates is difficult to understand for many people. A 'soft' redirect will be helpful. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and undo whatever it is you did to it. Donnie Love (talk) 2010 02 04 12:42:44
Comment: Redundant to what? Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is deprecated in favor of using parser functions, as stated in the banner on the template page. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if someone actually works with #switch (which is quite unlikely as a lot of template work is with meta templates), then they're usually pretty experienced with the MediaWiki software. Newbies don't use such functions, which is why a redirect is useless. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everything has been said. ParserFunctions replace this kind of templates. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 06:06, 17 February 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:Iftrue

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, virtually unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disable, then point to the help page on how to use parser functions as a soft redirect. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deprecated since June 2006. I don't see any need for a redirect because the only uses of this are on two 3+ year old user test pages and a 4+ year old talk page archive. No need to explain alternatives for a template that most active editors have never used. --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deprecated in favor of the #ifeq parser function, as stated in the banner on the template page. (Did you look at any of the template pages before you posted this question to multiple discussions? Every deprecated template has a banner with this information.) --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated and as my comment on {{Switch}}, unlikely to be used by newbies. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ParserFunctions completely supersedes this template. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 06:01, 17 February 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:Highrfc-loop

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highrfc-loop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. Presently, there are <250 translcusions which must be fixed prior to deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, until the transclusions are fixed. Samwb123^{Please read} 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty sure that almost all of the transclusions of this template are indirect, due to it being included in a few other templates, which in turn are included in still other templates, etc. I've removed it from three templates where I found it included directly. We should know in a few days if that leaves any further real transclusions. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that it has updated, it looks like the number of transclusions was cut in half. There are still a bunch on user talk pages that were created by notification templates that were substituted. I haven't checked them all, but most of the notifications are old (many are on archive pages), so the deletion shouldn't have much impact even if the transclusions are left un-subst'ed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deprecated in favor of what? Please provide more details when you make such claims so we can properly make a judgement in these cases. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The deprecation info, including the suggested alternative, is prominently displayed on the template page, as it is for all deprecated templates. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 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:Geolinks-UK-buildingscale

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) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolinks-UK-buildingscale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant of {{Coord}}. Unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Template is protected, so {{Tfd}} can't be added to it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 transclusions only, all trivial ones, and other templates do the job. Orderinchaos 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The transclusions have all been fixed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{coord}} Pit-yacker (talk) 18:17, 4 February 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:Geolinks-start

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) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolinks-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant of {{coord}}. Approximately 700 transculsions —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear to be deprecated. Some of those 700 relate to inclusion via a different template - run the check again in 24-48 hours when the database refreshes. Orderinchaos 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until transclusions are fixed. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed an underlying template to go directly to Coord instead of using this one, but I have no idea how many that change will affect - it could be most of them, for all I know. Orderinchaos 04:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checking a random sample suggests that the vast majority of the transclusions were indirect and probably removed by the change Orderinchaos made. (Unfortunately, it could be more than 48 hours for the transclusion list to update. I've seen it take a week when changing rarely-updated pages.) The template is used directly on a few File-namespace pages, which can easily by substituted. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until transclusion list confirms no longer used, then delete. Don't see that there's a big rush. --Chinasaur (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once unused. Redundant to {{coord}} Pit-yacker (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Looks like the change made by Orderinchaos has processed, and I subst'ed some remaining uses. There are only 14 transclusions remaining, mostly in user sandboxes, none in articles. Hopefully that is cleaned up enough for deletion to proceed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 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:Click

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 WP:SNOW keep Pcap ping 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, now a function of File namespace. Relatively few translcusions can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Change to Keep for now per below. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now "Relatively few" doesn't stack up, I'm seeing thousands of transclusions. Replace first, then delete will be uncontroversial. Orderinchaos 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right. Few in article namespace; which is an important caveat that I forgot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More than 8,000 user pages have been thrown out of whack by this nomination. Perhaps withdraw it until such time as a bot can replace all of these uses (before renomination). --JN 466 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos. --JN 466 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thousands of transclusions will waste loads of time cleaning up - unless you want to make a bot for that. 4 T C 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Too long to clean everything up. —Aaroncrick (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thousands of transclusions including the menus on my userpage. I think the sheer amount of work outweighs the duplicability and the change might not be identical or as clearcut (read buggy). I think this is a case of "if it's not broke don't fix it". Valley2city^‽ 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely used. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Errrr... how about no. It is widely used. No legitimate reason for deletion. Also my user page is consequently messed up. I'm not happy from this so called proposed deletion. Very inconvenient I must say. IJA (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-tag it; it's breaking stuff all over. Jeers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*I* wrapped it w/noinclude; it broke the fuckin' wiki. Jack Merridew 04:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and de-tag as quickly as possible as this nomination is stuffing up pages everywhere.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this TfD isn't helping anyone or anything, it is just causing problems. I want to be able to contribute to Wikipedia without these annoyances/ inconveniences. Can we have a speedy closure to this TfD please? IJA (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I see no reason to depreciate this now, seeing the vastness of its usage. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:45, 3 February 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:Cedarville Yellow Jackets football coach navbox

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 Withdrawn now that it is in use Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cedarville Yellow Jackets football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box with only redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer just redlinks. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 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:Catholic dioceses of the United States

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic dioceses of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which appears to be redundant to other templates such as {{R-C provinces in the United States}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would say keep if it wasn't orphaned though. Samwb123^{Please read} 03:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It hasn't caught on, I admit. Easy to read, but maybe too lengthy? Seems like it could be "saved" somehow. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant to other navboxes that cover the same articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 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:Sample box end

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) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sample box end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant of {{listen}} and part of two templates that are themselves redundant and deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - See TfD for Template:Sample box start — John Cardinal (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 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:Sound sample box align left

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) 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sound sample box align left (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant of {{Listen}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See TfD for Template:Sample box start — John Cardinal (talk) 02:48, 3 February 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:Infobox City Algeria

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Algeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm sure it will be useful in some article. Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Changed to delete, I guess it is redundant enough to be deleted. Samwb123^{Please read} 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CSD#T3 explicitly addresses unused, redundant templates. Prior consensus has been that cities are generally covered by {{Infobox settlement}}: here, here, here, here, here, ... There is no feature in this template which is not covered by the more general template. So, I don't see why we are needlessly duplicating function. Note that even Algiers uses {{Infobox settlement}}, and this is a needless fork. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; all these city boxes and such need to go in favor of settlement and any other such high-concept and robust templates. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:57, 3 February 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:Infobox City NZ

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template, which is redundant to other standard city infoboxes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is orphaned - not sure the general "city" one does the job, but this template doesn't, anyway. Orderinchaos 04:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant to a widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 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:Sound sample box align right

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) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sound sample box align right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, redundant of {{Listen}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - See TfD for Template:Sample box start — John Cardinal (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 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:Infobox City Taiwan

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Prior TFD for this template (in September 2009) closed as no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, will be useful in some article sometime. Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CSD#T3 explicitly addresses unused, redundant templates. Prior consensus has been that cities are generally covered by {{Infobox settlement}}: here, here, here, here, here, ... There is no feature in this template which is not covered by the more general template. So, I don't see why we are needlessly duplicating function. Note that even Taipei uses {{Infobox settlement}}, and this is a needless fork. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; all these city boxes and such need to go in favor of settlement and any other such high-concept and robust templates. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant to a widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 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:Reno 911!

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, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reno 911! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, which are easily navigable within the text of each. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, four articles is not enough for navigation, and it seems unlikely that the series will spur more articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Bovineboy2008. Samwb123^{Please read} 03:54, 3 February 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.