Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

Template:Tuvaluan political parties

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) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuvaluan political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although I've gotta admit, I kind of want to keep it just for comedic purposes. --[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless, but make some note on Elections and political parties in Tuvalu should the situation ever change to justify undeleting this. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 15 January 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:Userbox/Abilities

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 directory is not a userbox itself (like the parent template). Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userbox/Abilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and mostly redlinks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:TFD, userboxes "Should be listed at Mfd, regardless of what namespace they reside in." I am personally neutral on the outcome of this. Sebwite (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The appropriate venue for this is ambiguous, since it is not a userbox proper, but rather a matrix of userboxes (perhaps intended as examples?). Since it is unused and broken due many of the underlying templates having been deleted, my recommendation is the same regardless of venue, but feel free to move it if you think MFD would be better. --RL0919 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless; RL0919 has a good point about this not falling under the umbrella of MFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I do feel this discussion should be speedy closed and transferred/relisted as it is to MFD, with all comments already made included. This will give MfD followers a chance to comment there. And they may have differing views. Sebwite (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an abandoned and ill-considered attempt to create a directory of userboxes that deal with (musical, programming, and presumably many other) abilities. I write "ill-considered" because a complete directory of userboxes related to abilities would be too long to be useful. While MfD may be the appropriate venue—technically, this type of page belongs in the project or user namespaces, not the template namespace—I see no need to relist or transfer it there at this stage. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:39, 17 January 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:Van Morrison (Wavelength album and tour)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as an unopposed nomination. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Van Morrison (Wavelength album and tour) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Somewhat narrow in scope and redundant to {{Van Morrison}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 8 January 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:Leu

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. Any decision to include a mention of the Bulgarian lev, Moldovan leu, and Romanian leu in Template:Thaler is left to editorial discretion and, as appropriate, consensus achieved through discussion on that template's talk page or another appropriate location. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template contains four currencies, one of which is unrelated to the others. Maintaining a template for the remaining three currencies is not necessary, fortunately they are all part of the Template:Currencies of Europe. Timur lenk (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a marginal navbox on its own, but it is part of a broader system of numismatic navboxes, such as {{Dollar}}, {{Ruble}}, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant to {{Currencies of Europe}}, which is also on each page in question. — Bility (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant, not needed. Snappy (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some aspects may communicated by Template:Currencies of Europe, it has been established practice to also use Numismatic categorizing of currencies. The Template:Numismatic navigational templates features a category entitled "By name", on which Template:Leu is included (among others). This template, and those on which it is transcoded, have applications beyond that of the Currencies of Europe template.—DMCer™ 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the template included it in the Template:Numismatic navigational templates, upon deletion it can be removed. Other "by name" templates include templates for etymologically related currency names, however, because of lek, here this is not the case. Again, lek is unrelated to lev or leu in the etymological sense. There are several other currencies which have a name related etymologically to no or very few other currencies, so they have no such template. Timur lenk (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reiterate my keep vote for the following reason: They actually are etymologically related. To User:Timur lenk's point: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, both the Moldavian leu and Romanian leu come from the Romanian word for "lion," and the Bulgarian lev also translates to lion. Strictly etymologically-speaking, the unrelated currency here is the Albanian "lek," which is derived from Swedish and translates to something unrelated to the previous three. I would consider removing the Albanian, but these all are in the same region, and after establishing numismatic and etymological relations, they are useful in their present state.—DMCer™ 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leu and lev are indeed related, I never stated the opposite. If removing lek, we will have a template for 3 etymologically related currencies, If we let lek stay there, we will have the first "currencies beginning with the same 2 letters and used by countries in the same region thus apparently etymologically related"-template which does not make much sense. We could also include lempira then, although not fitting perfectly in the three-letter-series, and not very much used on the Balkans, but why not? At least the first two letters match :-) By the way, I thought lek derived from Skanderbeg's Albanian nickname, Leka. Again, if we remove lek, we will have an etymologic template that is by far the smallest. Compare: dollar: 91; pound: 76; franc: 61; peso: 34; rupee: 28; dinar: 27; guilder: 27; thaler: 26; crown: 19; mark: 18; escudo: 16; ruble: 11 (23). Maintaining a template of 3 currencies (or two names) is not useful at all. Leu and lev are actually derived from the dutch leeuwendaalder or lion thaler, which was a widely used coin in the Balkans throughout the 17th century. Maybe a reference in the thaler template would make a senseful substitution for the template discussed here. Timur lenk (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: even the heading is weird: Currencies named leu, lev, lek or similar. This practically contains names of and links to the currencies mentioned in the rest of the template... It's similar to have a template like this one:

Again, I suggest speedy deletion. Timur lenk (talk) 06:17, 14 January 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:Filmsite

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) 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate template for linking some movie fan's personal website that contains "300 reviews" (he was "bought" by American Movie Classics, but that still does not make it a proper link for inclusion). Does not meet WP:EL, even if considered reliable, as per guidelines reviews should not be linked in external links, and this site is purely a review site. Further it has no has no consensus for inclusion in film articles from the film project or anywhere else. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete external link template as unnecessary; I think the website is reliable (I will have to review) for implementing content into the article body of film articles. However, the website does not provide a unique resource beyond an article if one was Featured. There is a lot available, though, that could be directly implemented. Erik (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have enjoyed reading his reviews for years, so I may be a little biased. While most of his reviews shouldn't be linked to, some of them are acceptable because they contain material that is beyond our scope. I picked a random example of one of his reviews, 42nd Street and this would be appropriate to link to because it contains detailed plot descriptions and a focus on dialogue exchange that is beyond the scope of our film articles (per WP:ELYES point 3). Them From Space 03:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If most shouldn't be linked to, what validity is there in a template? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to delete, as the other concerns are entirely valid. My opinion on the merits of the link is the same as above. Them From Space 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A template consisting entirely of a external link is not necessary,a regular external link is just fine.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The links themselves may be entirely appropriate (I take no position on that), but site-specific templates for external linking are only appropriate for the most widely used or unusual cases. There's nothing about this site or the links to it on Wikipedia that suggests to me it is a good choice for having such a template. (The few existing transclusions should be subst'ed in case the links themselves are valuable.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 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:GSVadditions

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 Move out of template space and merge, i.e. substitute and delete, but keep edit history. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per TfD:GSVtable, another single-use template. Propose substitute into main article body and delete, per GSVtable precedent set by Plastikspork: "A single use template which serves as a replacement for text is not proper use of templates." Twredfish (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This provides important information on the history of SV. If the formatting is to be changed, the proper method is to #1 - move it into mainspace under a new title, #2 merge that title to Google Street View, #3 - leave a note of this on the talk page. This way, regular users will have access to the edit history easily, which is valuable when this will continue to be under a high level of discussion. Sebwite (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above AND I nominate only GSV table for deletion because that was really non-useful and too long. This is useful. TouLouse (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge per Sebwite.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't oppose the content, merely the storage of the content in a single-use table. The table is relevant only to Google_Street_View and belongs within the Google_Street_View main page. At that point, the template itself is orphaned and should be deleted. Sebwite's "keep" recommendation appears to really be a "merge" recommendation when you read their comments. All 'keep per sebwite' recommendations thus also seem to be merge recommendations, as was my initial recommendation as well.Twredfish (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not saying absolutely this should be merged. I am just saying that either way, the content should be kept, and more importantly, the edit history should be kept. WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template criterion #3 for deletion states that "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used." This template is not totally out of use, and the guideline here is not a prohibition against single-use templates. Yes, it is being used in just one article, but it is with good reason. Sebwite (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, arguments for merge and delete per Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose and by extension into Wikipedia:Subpages (Disallowed #3). Twredfish (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Single-use tables don't need to be in template space. The contribution history for the template can be placed in a collapsed box on the article's talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 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:Don Ross images

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. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Don Ross images (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All images moved to commons.
Unused.
Unlikely to be reused in the future.

IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 16 January 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:Supreme Dicks

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 kept as not redlinked now. Skier Dude (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supreme Dicks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard to justify a navigational template with all red links. It's an indie group. The article itself is iffy in terms of notability anyway. User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Funnily named group though :P —Crazytales (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the links have now been created, so this appears to be a functional navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 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:Reincarnation

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) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here's a (thankfully) unused template intended as a spiteful welcome to obvious sockpuppets. I understand the motivation, but any use of this template would imply a significant violation of WP:AGF and could not possibly be the best way to deal with even a disruptive sockpuppet. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Note though: have you checked usage with searching for the page text in the User talk: namespace, or just by checking Whatlinkshere? Looking at the talk page tells me that it was probably meant to be substed. —Crazytales (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched on "magically stumbled" in User talk: and apparently it was only used on one user talk page that it still stands upon now. Safe delete I'd say. —Crazytales (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that; no, I had only looked at What Links Here. Good to know. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hitting a new user with a sarcastic template message isn't very civil and is rather "bitey". If there is good evidence to overcome the assumption of good faith and accuse a new editor of being a sockpuppet, then it should be done seriously. If there isn't good evidence, then it shouldn't be done at all. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 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.