Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

December 4

Template:Definite article

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) 00:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Definite article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be a joke tag. Its use requires more typing than correcting the mentioned error, so it is inefficient. It is also fundamentally incorrect. Example: The dog (definite noun). The Playstation 3 (definite model of game system). Lexein (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The documentation appears to be missing definite articles, and thus is grammatically incorrect. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is part of the reason why Lexein calls it a "joke tag." Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tag is useful to bring attention to Wikipedia editors about the inconsistency in the use of the definite article. Interchanging between using and not using it in the same context is a negative quality attribute. As for its rationale, I have updated the definite article Wikipedia entry giving an explanation. In my opinion in cases where proper-nouns are product-specific (as is the case with Playstation 3) we can ommit the definite article. However, this is just an opinion. In any case, we should definately promote the consistent use of the definite article by keeping this template . Nxavar (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete newly created maintenance template, and we only have 203 more of them. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, just use the cleanup tag and add the appropriate reason.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a separate template when just putting a reason on the general cleanup tag will do. And considering the reason is something so fundamental and basic to English, the chance is the article has so many other problems as to be an atrocious mess. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary new maintenance tag when we have plenty already. {{Cleanup}} or {{Copy edit}} should do just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the original poster--this seems like a bad joke more than a serious maintenance template. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:39, 15 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:Incomplete

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless templates that can be replaced by {{stub}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Transclusions= 2,801. IMHO it's useful if a section or paragraph is incomplete, where a concept is obviously introduced but obviously not fleshed out. Example:

Many newspaper editorials opposed the legislation.^[1]^[2]^[3] (citing the papers, without prose explanation of the opposition, or any ref citing a source describing the opposition in aggregate).

This use makes it distinct from {{stub}} or {{expand}}, IMHO. I'd recommend the following:

Clarifying the above distinction in the documentation
Adding an optional |reason= parameter displayed in the template, for stating what's missing.
Deletion of the template from pages where the Talk page lacks an explanation of what's incomplete, as required in the template documentation.

--Lexein (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that "|reason=" should be mandatory. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this clearly cannot be replaced by {{stub}}. Adding stub templates to non-stub articles is a very bad idea. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close nominator has not added a deletion banner to the page, nor is there a request to add one. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably "quick close" because {{stub}} should not be used for non-stub pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, with support for a reason parameter and doc clarification —PC-XT+ 06:30, 7 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:Infobox NHS Foundation Trust

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NHS Foundation Trust (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Newly created infobox with two transclusions, most of the parameters are already part of Template:Infobox organization. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are around a dozen, newly-created article in the category for such trusts, with the potential for many more; each eligible to include this infobox. Naturally, given my interest in merging redundant infoboxes, I considered those that already existed before creating it; and found that there were sufficient unique parameters to warrant a new template. The use of further parameters for this new template is under discussion on elated project pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of the pages in Category:NHS Foundation Trusts have hardcoded infoboxes which could be replaced by this infobox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we need a proper template to replace the malformed handcrafted one which has been used on many existing NHS trusts. CQC and Monitor linkages are specific to NHS Trusts and not included in {{Infobox organization}}, and are necessary (just as {{Infobox UK school}} has links to Ofsted and DfE URN). PamD 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: potentially widespread use on >50 pages. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be very helpful. It could be applied to all NHS Trusts, not just Foundation Trusts so there are about 300 articles involved, including Wales, Scotland and NI.

But it is worth noting that NHS regions - which were widely used as an organising principle in Wikipedia - have been abolished. Even when they existed they were not a constant, as they were frequently reorganised. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Now moved to {{Infobox NHS trust}}; there are over 120 such articles on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sufficient unique parameters to warrant this being a distinct template from Template:Infobox organization. WaggersTALK 11:22, 11 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:Touchdown Club of Columbus Male Athlete of the Year

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) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Touchdown Club of Columbus Male Athlete of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is a stand-alone creation that fails to meet these guidelines of WP:NAVBOX:

N The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. → Not a single article mentions the navbox topic
N The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. → None of them refer to each other
N There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. → No and yes (see further explanation below)
N You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. → Not true

The only guideline which may qualify under WP:NAVBOX is "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject," but that alone is not enough to keep it. I'd also like to mention that the article Touchdown Club of Columbus is a list of various awards the organization hands out, but not a single one of them is "Male Athlete of the Year," so who the heck really knows what this navbox is even supposed to be referring to. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate navbox; possibly a WP:HOAX. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate subject for navbox--GrapedApe (talk) 03:12, 12 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:Oldsfd

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) 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only 1 transclusion. It can be replaced by {{Old CfD}}. Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{multidel}} and redirect to it. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 11:30, 4 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:USold

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) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The USCOTM has been defunct for over a year Magioladitis (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template for a collaboration that hasn't been active since February 2012. --RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 10 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:Long poem project

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) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long poem project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Project ended in 2008. Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Nxavar (talk) 08:56, 7 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:Mainpage date

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) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mainpage date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused unless I am missing something! This is a fully protected template. Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Redundant to {{Article history}}. --NSH002 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Appears to have been superseded by the much more difficult to use {{Article history}}. The remaining article should be switched to this template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 9 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:V0.5 nom possible

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) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:V0.5 nom possible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We are past version 0.5 now. Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Nxavar (talk) 08:56, 7 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:Mexico municipality navigation 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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico municipality navigation box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. NSH002 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 11 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:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity II

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 relisted on 2013 December 16 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity

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 relisted on 2013 December 16 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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.