Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

Template:Sure?

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) 04:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sure? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No apparent use. No description Harsh (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Derserves a description. I have used it once in this AN/I discussion and got two private messages that hailed the template's effect. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to be encouraging editors to be communicating in loud colours rather than words. Fire, with, kill. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an accessibility barrier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2014 (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:Unblock on hold-notification

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) 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock on hold-notification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is pretty unlikely to be used. UpEpSilon (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any admin who is posting a message on another admin's talk page regarding such an issue should be specific instead of using this vague, standardized template. I don't see how a regular non-admin user would use such a standardized message when they cannot unblock users anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2014 (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:Fresno Grizzlies roster navbox

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Fresno Grizzlies roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another minor league team navbox. Not updated regularly and thus rather useless. Minor league rosters change too frequently for this to be useful. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Most of the players on this navbox have pages. The fact that it is not updated regularly is the fault of editors (myself included), not the template. Plus, it seems that Wikipedia is trending toward more, not less, navboxes for minor league teams. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just cause the players have pages doesnt mean they need to have a navbox. Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean they don't need to either. Plus, almost every time a Triple-A navbox changes, a major league navbox changes as well. Does that mean we should delete those too? I still say keep. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true.. players are called up from AA to AAA all the time. The Major League ones are almost always up to date, the minor league ones almost never are. Being on a AAA team is not really a notable class while being on a Major League team is.Spanneraol (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the other roster naboxes you nom'd, I've updated this one, nullifying your deletion argument. Simply being "out of date" is not a reason to delete something. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the entire argument. The point is that minor league rosters change so frequently that these would have to be updated at least weekly and these nav boxes would be added and removed from pages at a fast rate. Unlike the MLB navboxes, where 40 man roster changes arent made that often... the minor league rosters change all the time. And being on a minor league team isn't a defining class that needs to have all these people grouped together with navboxes.Spanneraol (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rosters changing frequently isn't a viable reason to remove templates, in my opinion. There's really not THAT many more transactions in the Triple-A leagues on a daily basis than in MLB. Alex (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (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 population of concern

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) 05:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox number of affected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and largely redundant to other disaster templates (like Template:Infobox wildfire, Template:Infobox flood) in its intended usage. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be used with any new emergency which will happen. It standardize in more clear and professional way the information about affected people. Existing disaster templates show only number of fatalities, it doesn't contain information about refugees and other people of concern, what is sometimes more important. kianitsa(Talk) 10:12, 08 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it might be a good idea to start using this to track the sort of social impact parameters that we presently have to keep adding / syncing across the other crisis infoboxes. Better to have it in once place. It needs some copyediting, but I'd like to see this trialled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a module for use only in other infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually the idea from the beginning: to include it as a part if other infoboxes. I'm not sure how I can do it exactly, that's why I added a link from the disaster infoboxes (Template: Infobox hurricane, Template:Infobox flood and others). How can I make it differently? kianitsa(Talk) 12:16, 09 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll see if I can drum up some example code for running this as a module. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also against keeping it as a module. When similar figures are compiled for articles about a disaster, they are gathered from several media sources and often require lively discussion before they become broadly accepted (especially for wars), but in this template the definition of 'affected' population heavily relies on a single source, and the current documentation even mandates the use of an 'official website' as the only value allowed for references. That restriction has no basis in policy and would likely be ignored, but even imposing a straitjacket of standardised definitions from a single source would be hugely unhelpful to article development.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't mandate anything. It was just a kind of mistake with references. That's why I was asking for help. I changed it. There is no strict references demand. Just the form and the structure are more clear and standardized comparing with existing modules in other infoboxes.kianitsa(Talk) 09:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im not convinced of the need to be giving out what i strongly suspect, will be seriously inaccurate and underestimated figures on people affected, people injured. Im also not sure that stats on things like asylum seekers after a disaster are given out.Jason Rees (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The more i think about this template the more i think it isnt worth having, especially since the author has deployed it using only one island nations figures.Jason Rees (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this template is pure OR, especially the people affected figures as there is never a reliable source for this content. Secret ^account 16:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or userfy since it is unused, and there have been no demonstrations of articles needing this template. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2014 (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.