Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

August 21

Template:HOMinor

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) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is redundant as the yearly character lists are included on the {{Hollyoaks characters}} template. - JuneGloom Talk 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2012 (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.

Periodic table location of groups templates

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) 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (alkali metals location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (alkaline earth metals location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 4 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 5 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 8 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 9 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 10 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodic table (group 12 location) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Location of the periodic table group now in the sidebar (see e.g. Alkaline earth metal), where the location marking has more context by neighbouring colors (groups). Discussed at WT:ELEM. No transclusions any more. (Note: I created them earlier by taking wikitable code out of the original article page).-DePiep (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now redundant and just take up space. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (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:Mumbai Indians

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 per WP:CSD#G7. The template creator had already blanked the template. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mumbai Indians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty Page. W.D. 13:20, 21 August 2012 (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:Aus tv schedule box

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 Speedy delete, template consisted entirely of deleted articles so it qualified for G8. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aus tv schedule box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All red links. The only formerly blue links were recently deleted, with the conclusion that the linked articles (Australian TV schedules) are not inherently notable. DH85868993 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2012 (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:Cleanup-laundry

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-laundry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template blurb at Wikipedia:Cleanup templates says "For use in non-list articles where too much of the content is composed of lists." There is no doc however, so the use isn't clear. Every example I found seemed to be misusing it for {{Cleanup-list}}, which is "For use in non-list articles or sections where potentially unwanted lists need to be salvaged before being deleted". IMO, the intended use is too subtle a distinction (both boil down to "this article has problematic lists"), and given that {{cleanup-laundry}} is almost always misused for {{cleanup-list}}, it seems it would make more sense to merge them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it the other week for precisely these reasons. I don't think the arguments given to retain a separation between this and {{cleanup-list}} in the last TfD were convincing or even that well thought-out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The text of this template has described a problem covered by Cleanup-list for years now. The benefit of the list template is that it leaves the person cleaning up the work to decide what action would resolve the issue (by changing to prose, trimming down excessive listings, general list cleanup etc). I think we're all capable of making that judgement on a case by case basis. The root issue may even change over the lifetime of the template placement. Furthermore, the idea of "clean up laundry" is completely obtuse (seeing as that term didn't even make the creator's final cut) and we should avoid that name. SFB 11:35, 26 August 2012 (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:Contact information

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) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contact information (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"This template and the sentence in which it is inserted should not stay long in an article[…]This template is meant for temporary use only (ideally no more than 24 hours), and only on recently created articles that are nominated either for speedy deletion under the G11 speedy deletion criterion or where an otherwise acceptable article is being edited by a persistent spammer who also happens to be the article's creator.'" So why have it in the first place? What's wrong with just snipping out the contact information in the article? Unles you oversight one of the edits, the contact info is still in the page history. So just temporarily blacking it out with a template is completely counter-productive — especially if the article is an otherwise acceptable article that just got hit by a spammer. All you're doing is just cluttering the article. Furthermore, wouldn't it be more logical to just outright omit the entirety of a sentence reading something like "For more information, please call (540) 555-1234 and ask for Joe."?

tl;dr: If you see contact info in an article, just remove it. There is absolutely no need to throw a template over it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The use case here is muddled and it's not at all clear what benefit we give anyone by adding some random bit of rules trivia to pages that are already flagged for speedy deletion. Additionally, it's not clear that repurposing it for use on non-mainspace pages (talk, noticeboards) would be advantageous, especially given that contact information is not infrequently oversighted rather than just deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason I created this template was that when I removed contact information from articles that I tagged for speedy deletion, I kept being reverted. This way, by showing that a template exists for that very purpose, it shows the spammers that the removal is the doing of people who apply Wikipedia policy, not that of their competitors. In many cases these people don't bother to read their user talk page. I don't see that clutter is problematic when a page is slated for near-certain deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of revert-warring the removal of contact info, they'd be revert-warring your blocking out of the contact info with an unwieldy template, right? If clutter isn't problematic when the page is slated for near-certain deletion, then what benefit is it? The page is going to be deleted post haste anyway, so why bother putting anything other than a speedy template? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've noticed that I get reverted less often when I'm using the template. As I just pointed out, it shows the spammer why the contact info has been removed. If you just remove it, they think you're one of their competitors. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then put that information in the edit summary, or as a comment where the info used to be. As in my point below, I think having it in the article is more counter-productive than you believe. Also, it seems to go a little against the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia; do you expect to open an encyclopaedia and find half the information redacted, thereby leaving half-sentences that make very little sense? drewmunn (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed. It serves no purpose in that the sentence/ phrase in which contact information is used can be removed, and the article make more sense. It also serves a reverse process, much like the statement "don't think of an apple", in that anyone with any knowledge of Wikipedia will know that the information once existed, and simply check the history for it. If the context in which the information was removed, there's no reason for them to go looking. As such, the template fails at its original purpose. drewmunn (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. While I understand Blanchardb' s reason for the template and applaud his efforts to clean articles of spam content, I think that this sentence can just be added to the edit summary. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the right way to deal with inappropriate personal information in articles; using this template would only draw further attention to it. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (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.