Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 19

< December 18	December 20 >

December 19

Template:Super Bowl venues

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) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Bowl venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ties not strong enough to justify navbox, otherwise indiscriminate (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_8#Template:Grey_Cup_venues) ViperSnake151 Talk 00:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. the list of venues in List of Super Bowl champions is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Only three respondents

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to compare the Super Bowl to they Grey Cup is like comparing apples to oranges in significance of events to history. Also, OTHERSTUFFGOTDELETED is not a good argument to make either for deletion of this template. I would vote to Keep on this one.HotHat (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2013 (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-infobox

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) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I checked the transclusions of this template and found the following:

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association, ‪W. W. Herenton‬, Robin Mackintosh, Washington Redskins Cheerleaders, Chester Gregory, Karen Davis (economist), 2012–13 Lega Pro Seconda Divisione: The infoboxes are so short that nothing can really be "cleaned up" in them.

Audemars Piguet, University of North Texas at Dallas, Abby Hoffman, Jean-Louis Tournadre, Buffalo Jills, Oakland Raiderettes, Beddau, Church Village, Claye Young, Kris Hansen, Harris Goldberg, Rakhme: No infobox problems that I noted.

Charles Lane Poole: Cleanup template was placed due to someone having trouble coding the infobox properly, which seems to have been due solely to accidentally using curly brackets to make a wikilink.

Port of Cleveland: The concern seems to have been over what infobox to use, and is since resolved.

Bervin E. Purnell, Sea Gals: Don't even have infoboxes.

Earth Girls Are Easy (soundtrack): Article was merged to another, infobox is gone.

Panota: The infobox on the article was broken due to most of the coding being absent, and thus removed in 2010.

Qatar national ice hockey team: Infobox had none of the fields filled in, so I removed it.

Mrs Eaves had a simple coding problem that seems to have been fixed.

Template:Infobox livery company is itself an infobox, so asking for an infobox's infobox to be cleaned up is clearly wrong. In any event, its problem was fixed too.

Polyimide, Explorer 32, Australian Baptist Ministries: have hardcoded tables instead of actual infoboxes.

In short, the template has been used almost exclusively for drive-by tagging of infoboxes that show no evidence of needing cleanup. For some reason, a high number of cheerleading squad articles had them slapped on by one of two users, not once bothering with an explanation. And the few that legitimately did need cleanup were either due to n00bish coding errors or lack of effort on behalf of the person adding the infobox. Overall, the transclusions are fairly low for a "cleanup" template, suggesting that this is not a particularly widespread problem. The only real "problem" I can envision is the infobox missing important information, but even that is fairly minor at best, and not worthy of a maintenance template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep (preferred) or strong merge:~~ Strong keep: seems to be a valid template. I can think of several scenarios in which this template could be useful, and incorrect usage to date isn't a valid argument for deletion anyways. If not kept, this template should be merged with another cleanup template, not simply deleted. Note that, given the myriad of WP:ATA-type arguments used in these discussions, I've decided to change my opinion somewhat to try to balance them out. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not entirely for the nominator's rationale. We can tag pages with {{cleanup}} and put something about the infobox in the rationale; that would discourage driveby tagging, among other things. I agree with the nominator's point about the infrequency of use indicating a rarity of infoboxes that need cleanup. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – possible misapplication of template messages is no reason to delete them. The first one I looked up, Jamaica men's national ice hockey team, seemed entirely valid. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (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 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) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per violations of policies 2 and 3. Aside from (now broken) use as an ellipsis template, this is an unused and unusable template that does nothing of any use. Other editors seem not to want to use it as an ellipsis template, given MOS complaints about browser support. However, the only function of the prior template (admonishing French Wikipedians for using an inappropriate template) is a disservice. We can accomplish the same objective by a redirect or by a deletion (which will explain they should look elsewhere). The consensus seems to be to not redirect. Hence, the need to simply delete this.

Prior RfD survivals were for its use as a clock icon and its use as a redirect to expand section and not the current one. — $Llywelyn II$ 08:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We needn't keep this simply for parity with its odd use on other-language WPs, and the recent repurposing produces something that we don't really want because of WP:ELLIPSIS. This should have been deleted last time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be the most suitable option, here —PC-XT+ 18:08, 29 December 2013 (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:O'ahu Highways

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) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:O'ahu Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedent that deleted such by-county* templates for Michigan (Dec. 2011), Washington (July 2012), Georgia (May 2013), and Texas (October 2013). As in those cases, this template duplicates Category:Transportation in Honolulu County, Hawaii, which already groups together the island's highways without adding to the visual clutter at the bottom of the article. * The Hawaiian island of Oahu corresponds to Honolulu County, Hawaii. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prescient. --Admr Boltz 16:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oahu is an island, so this isn't technically the same as by-county templates, since this is a by-island template. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The island of Oahu and Honolulu County are coterminus, as noted in the nomination statement, thus it matters not if this were titled "Oahu Highways" or "Highways in Honolulu County, Hawaii", the effect is still the same. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not really, it is named as an island template, so we should not just be examining by-county precedents, we should be examining if we have other templates by-island or not. This functions as an island template as well as a county template, but the nomination only examines the issue from the county side of things, not from the island side of things -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, really. The island and the county are the same geographic area, so the effect of the template and the basis for whether or not an item is listed on the navbox are the same. There is no appreciable difference if this were retitled "Highways in Honolulu County, Hawaii"; if the template were retitled, nothing would be added or removed, so all of the same precedents still apply. Imzadi 1979 → 03:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The remaining issue isn't whether counties have such boxes, it's whether islands should have these boxes. So regardless of what the boundaries of the county are, it doesn't change the fact that this is still an island. Even if you renamed it to the county's name, the issue remains. You only address the navboxes from the county-side, and not from the island-side, this only treats half of reality. If large islands should not in general have such boxes, then that treats the other half of reality. If they should, then regardless of what the boundaries of the county is, it would be an island template that would then exist because islands have them. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and because we don't need a navbox for this - WP:NENAN. --Rs chen 7754 03:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Templates are not judged by their names, only by the content they transclude. I am unaware of a precedent for islands, so I must go by the categorization of this as primarily a county template, assuming it to be the closest match. If a precedent for similar islands contradicts this, I will reconsider. —PC-XT+ 18:16, 29 December 2013 (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.