Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23

Template:Infobox UK ward

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 No one seems to care enough to continue commenting. Anomie ⚔ 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox UK place}}, to which its unique parameters should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for merge. Only 117 transclusions out of around 10,000 UK wards; and wards fit neatly into the higher administrative areas in {{Infobox UK place}}. Also, the current template is a mix of old and new parameter schemes which is confusing for new editors. But needs feedback from users of the other template, in case they object to making it even more complicated than it already is or to extending it to include names of individual politicians (which might well cause maintenance difficulty and notability/NPOV disputes). Merging might mislead editors into thinking they are supposed to include details of multiple wards and councillors for places which cover more than one ward, such as all the councillors in a town. Also, need to clarify whether the existing or merged parameters should cover (in addition to district/borough wards) parish/community wards (which sometimes have over a dozen councillors); county electoral divisions (similar to wards and, in unitary counties, equivalent to wards in all respects); Scottish STV wards (3 or 4 councillors); Welsh electoral divisions (1 to 5 councillors); and NI wards (which are amalgamated into district electoral areas for local STV elections). (I've left a message seeking comment from UK place editors.) — Richardguk (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: last January {{UK ward}} was merged into this one. Hence the multiple options per parameter. To simplify the template, one could make {{UK ward}} and its parameter names obsolete (57 transclusions). -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And many pages using this template still have the location map outside of the template. See Bingley Rural for example. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is styled as an infobox, while {{Infobox UK place}} is an HTML table. Infobox UK places should be revamped first, or we'd loose good class styling in this one. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's easily resolved, and can be done as part of the same process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Turn {{Infobox UK place}} into a full dressed infobox: not "easy" and not in the merge process. But yes, it can be done, preferably beforethe merge. -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Infobox UK place}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on style, I wonder? Last time we met, you had. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: While there is weakly a consensus to merge, others have raised major questions about the feasibility of doing so. I'd suggest someone in the pro-merge faction sandbox a merged version.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anomie ⚔ 21:01, 23 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:Notablewarn

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 for now The only current use of this template is in the Requested Articles process. I'd have no objection to someone renaming the category to reflect the fact that this shouldn't be used on articles. I'd also not be opposed to a renomination if the Requested Articles process is revised to remove the use of this template. Anomie ⚔ 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serves little to no purpose. All it does is clutter up the Requested Articles queue with "verify notability". Oddly, it places stuff in Category:Articles with non-notable red links, despite the docs saying it should NOT be used on articles. I honestly don't see any use for this template since its purpose is so narrow. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used as per instructions and the documentation makes it clear that use on lists is a valid use. And there's really no reason it can't be used on articles, except that I would hope people would get a rough idea of notability before creating a red-linked article. Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: this should maybe discussed also at WT:RA in the related RFC. mabdul 17:46, 20 March 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) 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is delete - if an article falls within its stated purpose of being some sort of warning sign on creating non-notable articles then it is superfluous to the "a page by this name has already been created and deleted" message that will appear when they try to do just that... If that doesn't give them a clue then the template is unlikely to enlighten them either. Also makes for messy articles - please deleted this pre-emptive template. Sets a poor precedent etc etc.
If the template is restricted to being used only within non-article space then I have no opininon. Should not be used in article space.Oranjblud (talk) 19:42, 20 April 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 V8 Supercar driver

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) 03:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox V8 Supercar driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox racing driver}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For technical reasons relating to V8 Supercar statistics. Essentially it is not redundant. Data featured in the V8 Supercar driver infobox is specific to the series and not able to be presented in the Infobox racing driver. It is similar to a number of series specific racing driver boxes like NASCAR. Indycar, Formula One etc. Primary point of difference is the difference between Round Wins and Race Wins, an important clarifier as the organising body of V8 Supercar has changed the definition of how wins are recorded a few years ago. End result is that without the clarifier between the two statistics (a stat no allowed for in Infobox Racing Driver) is it could encourage edit warring over the statistic is it does not clarify wither it means Round wins or Race wins. This isn't this first time this has been suggested. This move was suggested a couple of years ago (as a merger) at the Infoboxes previous location Template:V8 Supercar driver. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would two parameters in one template not resolve that Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete—add the missing parameters to the other template and then merge/orphan/redirect as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "missing" parameter is not in use elsewhere in motorsport and would then create further confusion surrounding its use in the racing driver infobox. --Falcadore (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why we have template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would we really have a critera for only one series in a very widely used infobox? It would likely be deleted on that basis, then the data is lost. Documentation would not help. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and we have plenty of other instances where infoboxes have parameters in such circumstances. There is no evidence to support your assertion that "it would likely be deleted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Falcadore. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or wrap obviously. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge the last few fields, "update" the existing documentation (not really a good one, should get a few minutes of work), and then redirect. mabdul 14:37, 20 March 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) 03:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:45, 23 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:Incomplete table

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to {{incomplete list}} ({{expand list}}) since an incomplete table is just an incomplete list. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is just silly. Someone might be quite happy to work on lists, but not have table wrangling skills. And tables are not "just lists" in a useful sense, they are lists with systematic descriptions of properties, at the very least, and some are far more complex than that allowing construction of mappings. By this token a graph is a list, and a picture is a a list of pixels. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Furthermore it is historical best practice for people to have the liberty to use either "<Template>|<what>" or "<Template> <what> partly because the community preferences swings from one to the other as some bright spark "invents" the one-size-fits-all template or comes up with have-separate-templates-so-people-don't-have-to-remember-parameters. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 19 March 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) 03:45, 23 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:Monica singles

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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monica singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Emptied template that was replaced with Template:Monica_songs J36miles (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Should just go back to the 23 April 2010‎ version which was a redirect to Monica songs. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The blanking should have just been reverted back to its redirect state from before. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:45, 24 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.