Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 28

< February 27	February 29 >

February 28

Template:Libby Roderick

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Libby Roderick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only the artist's main page has an article. Gongshow ^Talk 04:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unuseful as a navigation template. mabdul 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that Talk:Libby Roderick is devoid of discussion. I don't know who if anyone maintains the article. Did anyone think of asking (perhaps starting with the template's creator) if any of her fans had plans to write these articles or not?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:32, 5 March 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:KCO

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

no active directly related links. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the links for O-Crazy Luv and A Song Is Born (song) are added, the template would still navigate very few articles. Gongshow ^Talk 04:45, 2 March 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:PUFresolved

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{oldpuffull}} (which is more widely used); if the decision is to delete, there are only 60 transclusions, so it should be a simple matter of using AutoWikiBrowser to relink all transclusions to oldpuffull. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and redirect 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 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:WikiMapia

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

One use; replaceable by {{cite map}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—but rebuild along the lines of {{google maps}}, {{yahoo maps}} and {{bing maps}}. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Digging deeper, WikiMapia is an open wiki that is a front end onto Google Maps. It will never qualify as a reliable source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:34, 3 March 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:Infobox NI Civil Parish

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NI Civil Parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As creator of this infobox, i've merged it with Template:Infobox Townlands to decrease redundancy, and as such request that it be deleted as it now serves no purpose. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but replace with {{Infobox settlement}}, otherwise keep until the future of {{Infobox Townlands}} is decided. Note that Townlands' recent TfD closed with a recommendation to "refactor the template as a frontend, and then discuss the merits of having the template as a frontend vs. substituting it". That has not yet been done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you checked the template you'd see that {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't have all the parameters required for it to be merged with it. {{Infobox Townlands}} (which i also created) only needed the addition of one parameter for it do the same job as it shares every other parameter and the topic of the two templates is very closely related. Thus it has reduced redundancy.
- Also the future of {{Infobox Townlands}} is decided for now - the result of your TfD was no consensus with suggestions added on what could be done. So please don't refactor the end result to suit your desire to have Infobox Townlands deleted. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your accusation of refactoring is both false and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As is your behaviour which is bordering WP:TROLLING in regards to the template that this one was merged with. The accusation of re-factoring isn't false as you failed to mention that the TfD result was "no concensus". Mabuska ^(talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't mention that Barack Obama is President of the USA, either. That doesn't make what I did say false, and it doesn't make it refactoring. Your accusation is both false and contrary to Wikipedia policy; as is your accusation relating to trolling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever, the facts of the situation are mentioned and i'm content on the merits of the arguement given. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as orphaned and redundant. discussion concerning the formatting townlands template is ongoing on its talk page, so how about we discuss it there? Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 28 February 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:The Programming Block Barnstar

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Programming Block Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unlikely to be used, as the "programming block project" only has one member. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still trying to figure out how to delete the related wikiproject for this, but yes, we definitely don't need a barnstar for a project with a very niche (and cruft-spewing) purpose. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nate - not useful for such a niche project. In fact, I have nominated the project as well for deletion at Mfd. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:06, 4 March 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.

Single ship class 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 No consensus. The consensus here seems to be evenly split between "keep (and maybe add succession info to give them a minimum of usefulness)" and "delete after substing". Anomie ⚔ 20:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bainbridge class cruiser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Long Beach class cruiser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Truxtun class cruiser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ship templates for classes with only one ship have limited navigation value. The template will never be able to expand. So we have only three links total per template. Brad (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; useless ritual padding. Classes of ships which have lots of members might realistically get their own navbox, category, index article &c; but duplicating that infrastructure for a "class" of ships with a single member is just silly. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all bobrayner (talk) said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2012‎
Keep and reformat - while as they are the templates are pretty useless and I'd agree that they should be deleted, they can become useful navigational devices, simply by adding "previous class" and "next class" links as I've seen in other ship class infoboxes. A single-ship class is still a class, and providing "directions" like that serves a valid navigational purpose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete all - the navboxes are useful for the reason stated by Bushranger, but that doesn't mean it has to be in template form. See for example USS Wichita (CA-45). Parsecboy (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we subst, then any future code changes, accessibility improvements or style tweaks would not be applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then keep them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent if they're kept or not, but they need to be modified as per Bushranger's suggestions or they can be replaced by a table as per Parsecboy's example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement with a succession box Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC) keep all or replace with a succession box. Do not substitute. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about you redact that attack? Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Subst with navigation box (as per Parsec), or Keep (as per Bushranger). Do not replace with a succession box. Benea (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I was thinking of {{web browsers}} like system. mabdul 20:23, 11 March 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.