Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18

Template:2010 Our Sound entries

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 11:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Our Sound entries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just doesn't seem a useful navbox for an event that hasn't even take place and may not ever. I have proposed deletion of the two articles that are linked here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources indicate if this contest will ever take place. There are no entries. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2011 (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:Dale Brown

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 Wrong section. (NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dale Brown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see that this page is called "Template for Discussion" not "Template for Deletion"; so I am bringing this template here for discussion. Should we delete its red links or not? And should we keep Act of War: Direct Action in it? Fleet Command (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note at the top of the page that it says that this is where the deletion or merging of templates is discussed. You may want to post your question at Template talk:Dale Brown and/or Talk:Dale Brown. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very funny: We are in 21st century, the century of subtlety, and Wikipedians are not subtle! Should I always start a deletion discussion with "This template is such and such bastard" and pretend I have never heard of the word neutrality? I guess I should thank God no one came along to say "Keep! It's notable!" Fleet Command (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what I said was funny. I thought I was just trying to be helpful in guiding you to an appropriate talk page. I apologize for offending you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - None taken, sir. Your word was not funny. The fact (that we are in 21st and et al) was funny. I am affixing a colon to clarify that. I hope I didn't offend you. Fleet Command (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the "articles" it navigates, the correct approach would seem to be merging all of them to a list of books by Dale Brown and then deleting the navbox. The content is at far too early a stage of development to go splitting it up and having navboxes at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Well, I wonder if you'd post this very same reply in the corresponding AfD too. We are badly short of input there. Fleet Command (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:CANVASS, and what it says about soliciting input at areas such as AFD from people who hold the position you advocate. Edison (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you even read WP:CANVASS yourself before accusing me? Chris gave his opinion without my initial asking him for input; I merely asked him to take it to the correct place, especially in light of the fact that the AfD had already been underattended and once relisted. Fleet Command (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem with Chris's opinion, is that he assumes that a list and a navbox serve the same purpose, quite frankly they don't. Navboxes are just what their name describes them as: navigational tools. On the otherhand, lists are used to flesh out a series of ideas related in some way, especially if the books are notable. I am firmly against deleting the template under those grounds, and feel that at least some of the books are notable and have potential for expansion, Sadads (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The books are clearly notable, because of the high profile of Dale Brown and the relative impact he has had on thriller fiction, and so all the articles should be created at some point. If we remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, red links actually show that we are missing some content that is fairly notable. At the very least, even if all the individual books are not notable, they are elements of the Dale Brown's fiction which should be covered at some point in a list or on his biography page. In this respect, we should be keeping the template, because eventually everything should be covered in it and there need to be at least several individual article pages and lists which need to be navigated to. Sadads (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTAF discourages this sort of approach to writing articles. Consensus is that subject matter is best added to organically from a good core and split when necessary, rather than minimal content being spread across dozens of low-quality stub articles (from what I saw of the novel articles, they consist of nothing but plot summaries right now). Otherwise, what typically happens is that article content is worked on until it meets the bare minimum requirements for avoiding deletion and then left to rot. A single good core article on the books would be far better for the encyclopedia, and would obviate the need for boilerplate navigation such as this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 10 blue links on it for his novels. So its a fine template for this author. If you somehow convince people to delete all of the articles for these bestselling novels, then the template will be useless. Dream Focus 10:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Ha! Ha! Keep? No one said anything about deletion here! Your continuous wikihounding of me has become very amusing. Fleet Command (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everywhere else on this page, right now and always before, people say keep or delete. You nominated a lot of the books on the template for deletion. No one is wikihounding you. I found my way to the AFD for the books and commented. Those articles have this template in it with a message over it saying "The template below (Dale Brown) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." You are wasting everyone's time bringing this here, if you aren't seeking to delete it, since this is what this place is now and has always been for the discussion of. Dream Focus 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My misinterpretation of "Templates for discussion" is already advised above. However, as you yourself admitted above, you did not fulfill the most basic requirement of participating in TfD which is reading the nomination itself. Fleet Command (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2011 (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 Asia-Pacific Song Contest

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 11:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Asia-Pacific Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox for music competition show that has yet to and may never take place. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources indicate if this contest will ever take place. Grk1011 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (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:Our Sound Years

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) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Our Sound Years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template might be useful when/if this contest ever gets off the ground, but for now, template provides navigation only between two articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very very few articles about a contest that it is douptful if it will ever take place. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources indicate if this contest will ever take place. Grk1011 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (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:Location map/Composite

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) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map/Composite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to have been an experiment. –droll [chat] 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and the template makes no sense. Rcsprinter (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2011 (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:AIFA Arenas

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 the organization does not exist any more. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AIFA Arenas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The American Indoor Football Association no longer exists. Therefore, they have no current arenas. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe a content change to "Former ..." areans?Curb Chain (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2011 (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:USBL Arenas

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 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USBL Arenas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The United States Basketball League exists solely as an entity on the stock market. Has not played a game since the 2007 season concluded. Ergo, there are no current arenas in the USBL. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe a content change to "Former ..." areans?Curb Chain (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please not remove the template from the pages it was present on while the discussion is ongoing? It gives the false impression that it's not currently being used anywhere at the time of your nomination, and it makes it nearly impossible to find this discussion unless they're on the template page itself or looking at the TfD page. --fuzzy510 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this league was operating I would delete it as over templating. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (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.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football schedules

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) 20:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2003 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2004 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As single-use templates, there is no reason for these to exist. I have substituted their content onto Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham in anticipation of their deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single-use templates that have been subst'ed, per Jweiss11. cmadler (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (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:Chess piece

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chess piece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A relatively tiny amount of links, all of which are already included on every transclusion candidate (either directly in the prose or through sidebars such as {{table chess pieces}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{table chess pieces}} This links to more articles. {{table chess pieces}} is not as useful and does not link in an encyclopedic way.Curb Chain (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your actually saying keep to the template under discussion, perhaps you could refactor your reply. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep this template, delete {{table chess pieces}}Curb Chain (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think everything above says it all. Rcsprinter (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reasons, one, nominators rational is false as the terms are not included on every candidate eg Grasshopper (chess piece). Two, while I accept there is duplication on some articles this template is preferrable in my view to {{table chess pieces}}. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (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.

Template:Chess names

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chess names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

text substitution used in only one article. No probability of reuse. Substitute and delete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what ye like, ye deletionists. This template has been fine for several years before you came along and found an unnecessary problem with it. It's been copied to dozens of wikis, informative, and interesting. But do what you like, knowing that your gung-ho attitude on deletionism is the reason wikipedia has lost and/or failed to attract many of its better and more passionate editors. --Ioscius ^∞ 12:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being deleted: it's being moved into the article for ease of maintenance as it can't be re-used elsewhere. The next time you feel the need to blame the world's ills on another editor consider getting your facts straight first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's actually used on 2 articles, but weather that should be the case is another issue.Curb Chain (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, quite. However, I think it's fair to say that it doesn't really belong in Algebraic notation (chess), being tangential at best to that subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. What i can say is that the template is only listing the name of chess pieces in other languages so the figure wouldn't be exhaustive.Curb Chain (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, currently being used in two articles, Chess piece and Algebraic notation (chess). I don't agree that is could be removed from Algebraic notation (chess) without either creating duplication that is a maintence issue, removing content that logically is required for the article or creating another similar template to do what this one does. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Templates don't just exist as Navboxes. The reason to retain this is to detatch the code from the article, which if Substituted would add clutter to those editors unfamiliar with a box like this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used in two articles and it belongs in both. The abbreviations for the pieces are an essential part of algebraic notation (chess). Quale (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (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:FreeContentMeta

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 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, doesn't appear to be useful, as links to other wikis are done via interwikis. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous TfD. Long deprecated and not obviously useful over and above the simpler interwiki style. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basic idea of this was part of the extended and ultimately failed efforts to keep a couple of people from gutting Wikipedia's coverage on fiction and humanities topics by using the many other projects that focus on fictional universes in a matter analogous to sister projects - just as we offload quotes to Wikiquote and link to it, we could offload plot summaries and fictional trivia to those projects and maintain some balance. As with every other effort to retain actually useful information that people regularly accessed Wikipedia for, it was shot down by idiots who did irreparable harm to this project and are why I don't edit it anymore. Which is to say, this is still a good idea, but indeed a deprecated one, and no further harm would be done by putting it out of its misery. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2011 (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:Australia 2011 IFAF World Cup roster 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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia 2011 IFAF World Cup roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink makes the navbox pointless (the whole point of navigation boxes is not navigate to other related articles). Highly unlikely that any of these redlinks will turn blue any time soon. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created it and yes it is a useless template. I forgot about it. The lone blue link is Ben Graham and he actually didn't get clearance to play in the World Cup. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (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.

College football rosters and depth charts

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 after substitution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Arkansas Razorbacks football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2010 Arkansas Razorbacks football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Current Arkansas Razorbacks football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006 Florida Gators depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Kansas State Wildcats football depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 Minnesota Golden Gophers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Minnesota Golden Gophers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2002 Ohio State Buckeyes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006 Ohio State Buckeyes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Ohio State Buckeyes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006 Purdue Boilermakers football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Texas A&M Aggies football depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2005 Texas Longhorns roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Texas Longhorns roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 UCLA Bruins depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 UCLA Bruins depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2004 USC Trojans football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates all render content, either a roster listing or depth chart table, for a college football team during a particular season. Such content belongs in only one place on Wikipedia, the article for that team's particular season. Therefore, there is no reason for this content to be put into a template because it does not need to be replicated. In advance of the deletion for these templates, I've replaced their calls with their contained code on the relevant articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Template:2000 Oklahoma Sooners football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) isn't showing up above. It should be included here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subst each as appropriate and then delete all. cmadler (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few more template that should be included in this discussion:

Template:1994 Alabama Crimson Tide Starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Bowling Green Falcons football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Boston College Eagles football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Maryland Terrapins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Florida Gators coaching staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Bowling Green Falcons football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Florida Gators coaching staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 Kentucky Wildcats roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Jweiss11 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it needs to be explicitly stated again, subst each as appropriate and then delete all. And the same goes for any further such templates that are found. There is no reason to have a template for information that will only ever appear in one article. cmadler (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2011 (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.