Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10

Template:Colombian ministries and agencies

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) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombian ministries and agencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to link back onto itself, states that it is "for usage with Ministries that fall under the category of Category:Colombian ministries and agencies", which was itself deleted on 28 August 2007 EmanWilm (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No transclusions to articles. Has been replaced by {{Infobox government agency}}. --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 18 September 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:Colombian government agencies

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) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombian government agencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to link back onto itself, has not been edited since 11 August 2007, states that it is "for usage with Ministries that fall under the category of Category:Colombian ministries and agencies", which was itself deleted on 28 August 2007 EmanWilm (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No transclusions to articles. Has been replaced by {{Infobox government agency}}. --Bsherr (talk) 04:20, 18 September 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:Edinburgh Wolves roster

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

The result of the discussion was Delete per T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edinburgh Wolves roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was only transcluded to single article (Edinburgh Wolves). I have subst it into this article. There is little scope of it being used elsewhere. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:12, 10 September 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:Coventry Jets roster

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

The result of the discussion was Delete per T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coventry Jets roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was only transcluded to single article (Coventry Jets). I have subst it into this article. There is little scope of it being used elsewhere Pit-yacker (talk) 23:06, 10 September 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:Tamworth Phoenix roster

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) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tamworth Phoenix roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was only used on one article, and there is little scope for it to be used on any more articles. I have subst the single transclusion into Tamworth Phoenix . Pit-yacker (talk) 22:49, 10 September 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 Vancouver SkyTrain station

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) 21:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Vancouver SkyTrain station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only used on ~40 articles, {{being deleted}} can be added until the rest are complete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a total of 47 extant SkyTrain stations in existence, so approx.40 articles would effectively mean that every SkyTrain station article uses this template. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Go ahead, make my day. This template is now unused and unwanted. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Replaced by {{Infobox station}}. Tagged for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 18 September 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:Bob Barr

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bob Barr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles other than the title and one of them is barely a Bob Barr article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is considered the minimum # of articles a template must link to in order for its existence to be "legitimate"?--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response As far as I'm aware, there isn't a strict minimum, but less than a half-dozen or so is usually not useful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It may not contain many links, but it seems legitimate enough. I've got rid of the photo and red link, though. PC78 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for navigational purposes. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the guidelines for navboxes, more so now that the red link has been removed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:24, 10 September 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:South Park (season 13)

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) 20:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Park (season 13) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Park episodes covers all episodes, including season 13; this season template is therefore redundant. -- Matthew RD 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EmanWilm (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also tagged for speedy deletion. Whichever occurs first. --Bsherr (talk) 04:24, 18 September 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:PortableApps.com

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 speedily deleted. TN X Man 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PortableApps.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Functionally spam for a website, bunch of redlinks in appropriate for nav template. being in a collection is not worthy of a nav template on most software articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a reason for a website to have its own template. Looks like spam to me, too.—J. M. (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, it is WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is clearly spam. Not only should the template be deleted but the link should also be removed from pages that were spammed with it. Guy Macon 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest deleting the template immediately, without waiting for 7 days as required by WP:AFD. This is a clear case of WP:SNOW—the consensus is already apparent, there is no chance that this template will survive, it will undoubtedly be deleted, as it does nothing but promote a website. The template creator is adding it to as many software-related articles as possible, and for a spammer, even a short promotion on Wikipedia that lasts 7 days is a success. Actually, I think adding the template to Templates for discussion was a mistake, this should have been dealt with using the Speedy deletion process, as it it obvious spam. Spam should be removed as quickly as possible. I will not nominate it for speedy deletion now that it's nominated here, but there is no need to wait for the full bureaucratic process here, common sense should be applied.—J. M. (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it for CSD. In my experience, templates marked for CSD aren't speedily deleted because they are kind of orphaned from the normal CSD process. Any wandering admin who notices this conversation can act though, hint hint. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Delete - Pure spam, adds nothing to the Wikipedia and only serves to promote a product Nuwewsco (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy template. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:25, 10 September 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:Catmore1 and Template:Catmore2

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) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catmore1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Catmore2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging one way or the other. I see little benefit of utilizing two templates which both do the exact same thing. The only difference between the two is that the former requires the use of a pipelink, while the latter does not. Personally, I would be inclined to merge the former to the latter, as I don't see much of a reason to require pipe links when it can be conveniently linked right from the start. — ξ ^xplicit 04:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it allows formating the of the catmore, allowing better presentation. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. So far as I can tell, a lot of categories that use {{Catmore1}} should actually be using {{Catmore2}} as they don't require piped links. It would be trivial to have {{Catmore2}} pipe links by using a second parameter (I've already done this in the sandbox), or we could merge the other way, whichever works best. But to be honest, I don't see any real reason to be piping links in categories anyway. See Category:Pulp albums: what is the benefit in piping the link? The article we're directing people to is Pulp (band), not Pulp, so why not be clear instead of confusing things with an unnecessary pipe? PC78 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 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 Archaeological Site

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archaeological Site (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox archaeological site}}. Having two templates that differ only by capitalization and do the same thing is confusing. 12.185.186.2 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion or merge, depending on how desirable the extra parameters are (I don't know myself). This is a fairly recent creation and is only used in one article. We don't need two infoboxes for the same thing. PC78 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, duplicate infobox. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:53, 10 September 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 Camera

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Camera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a handful of uses and basically redundant to the more widely used {{Infobox camera}}. It would seem as though any missing fields from {{Infobox camera}} could be added and the small number of transclusions could be converted. Having two templates that differ only by capitalization and do the same thing is confusing. 12.185.186.2 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this template into the other, since it is the least used and incorrectly capitalised. We don't need two infoboxes for the same thing. PC78 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, duplicate infobox. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PC78. --Bsherr (talk) 04:14, 18 September 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.