Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 25[edit]

Template:Worksop Town F.C.[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Worksop Town F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the eight links in this navbox, two of them link to category pages and four of them link to different sections of the same page. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Hinckley United F.C.[edit]

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) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hinckley United F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the four links in this navbox, one of them links to a category page. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there currently any guidlines or criteria on Wiki to a mimimum amount of links in a navbox? I only ask as I see a lot of the non league football teams have had their navboxes put up for deletion, including this one. Why would it be a problem for Wiki to have all these navboxes? DJhinckley (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The only real criteria is that navboxes in article space are "useful". Admittedly that's quite an open-ended criterion. WFCforLife (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Hucknall Town F.C.[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hucknall Town F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the four links in this navbox, two of them link to category pages. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I do make use of this template (and Template:Worksop Town F.C.), but if it causes a problem just sitting there, I'm not going to object to deletion. Bevo74 (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to how you make use of this template? There should be links to and from the club and stadium articles on each of them, and I don't believe it's necessary to link to category pages. – PeeJay 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I follow the links. Bevo74 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Couldn't you do that by clicking on the links already in the articles? – PeeJay 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. If the user wants to make use of it, he can always copy it into his userspace. Robofish (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Grays Athletic F.C.[edit]

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) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Grays Athletic F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the seven links in this navbox, four of them link to category pages. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Dover Athletic F.C.[edit]

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) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dover Athletic F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the five links in this navbox, two of them link to category pages. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I created this, but I'm not exactly going to lose sleep if it gets binned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Eastbourne Borough F.C.[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Eastbourne Borough F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

There are only four links in this navbox, one of which links to a category page. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - not enough links to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Gainsborough Trinity F.C.[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Gainsborough Trinity F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Out of the nine links in this navbox, only four link to pages that actually exist, and two of those link to different sections of the same page. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – PeeJay 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - can be recreated when these articles have been created. Robofish (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - navbox is not useful. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Tributaries of Mureş River (Hungarian - Romanian names)[edit]

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) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Hungarian - Romanian names) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template is useless, there exists already a template with Hungarian alternative names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tributaries_of_Mure%C5%9F_River_%28Romanian_and_Hungarian_names%29 . (Iaaasi (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)) This is the old discussion. I am not against of bilingual templates. The real question is if alternative names are conseidered useless or alternative name templates. I appreciate your readiness to compromise in former issues. kind regards User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete because there
1. The information contained here is substantially a duplicate of Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)
2. The insertion of two templates would be more acceptable if the former one would present Romanian and the latter Hungarian names, but in this case we have 2 bilingual templates: the first one is Romanian - Hungarian and the second one is Hungarian - Romanian. We don't need a second one that performs exactly same function (the only difference is that the order of the names is reversed)
3. The idea suggested by Rokarudi that the importance of the Hungarian name is minimallised when putting the Romanian name first and the alternative Hungarian one between paranthesses is false. It's stupid to assert that by introducing the Hung-Rom template it is made a measure to justice that corrects a discrimination. And anyway it would be somehow logical for the Romanians names of the tributaries to have priority, as Mures River flows on 761 km of his 803 km length in Romania and all the tributaries are received in this country(Iaaasi (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

  • Delete as a duplicate of a template that is already too long. It's already questionable whether Hungarian names should be in that template - after all, the Romanian National Water Administration recognises only their Romanian names, and we don't need a giant template simply to satisfy every linguistic group with a possible claim to a name for those rivers - but two templates is definite overkill. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. {{Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)}} navigates using the correct article names, and includes the alternative language names as well, so there is no purpose to a duplicate. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • keepRomanian National Water Administration is not an authority to tell what river names may be used on Wikipedia. There are only two linguistic groups concerned, so these two have to satisfied.--Rokarudi 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
the first template is already bilingual, there is no need to keep a this one too (Iaaasi (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
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:Parity[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Parity (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template of no readily obvious purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete with rancour, absolutely. Bloody "plagiarism" waste of time, as if we didn't have rather more important things to do! The only thing to celebrate is that nobody has been idiotic enough to actually use it. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete It's unused because it's useless. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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:Passive voice[edit]

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 Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Passive voice (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template should be deleted. Just take a look at that sentence... it is in the passive voice, yet it is concise and accurate. The same sentiment cannot be conveyed accurately in the active voice. The sentence does not "obfuscate the meaning" and readers would not "experience it as stilted"; quite the contrary of the language used by the template, in fact! But there is no point in just changing the language: this template simply expresses a stylistic prejudice on the part of editors who use it, without any basis in actually improving our content. It cannot be remedied, so it should be scrapped. Physchim62 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep This template does not wag war against passive voice when used judiciously, which indeed would be strange. After all, passive voice is part of the English language. This template just warns against its possible misuse, which is a normal function for a maintenance template. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that is the function of school lessons or other ways of learning writing skills in English. Anyone who actually put this template on an article would be in serious need of more training in the composition of good English prose. Wikipedia does not exist to teach people writing skills, there are plenty of other online collaborative writing workshops for that. {{Rewrite}} exists for truly heinous abuse of the English language. Physchim62 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Very funny, but not correct. At most you could argue redundancy to {{Copyedit}}. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really, although {{copyedit}} might be appropriate in occasional cases. See SlimVirgin's point below: there is nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice, and so we shouldn't have templates suggesting that there is. The very existence of this template presumes that we should prefer the active voice over the passive voice, which is simply nonsense. The fact that it is appallingly badly written leads me to believe that it should be smothered at birth (note use of the passive voice to emphasize the result of the action over the identity of the active subject – I don't care which admin deletes it, merely that it is deleted) to ensure that such silliness does not propagate throughout the encyclopedia. Article templates such as this one just make us look ridiculous. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with wikilinks either, and still we have {{Overlinked}} for the excesses. This is another such template, warning against excessive use of the passive voice. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I don't see how this would improve anything. I doubt someone would be moved to change the voice from passive to active just because of a template. Maurreen (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice when used appropriately, so the template will simply disfigure articles for no good reason. It would be like creating a "this article contains semi-colons" template, on the grounds that sometimes the semi-colon is used badly. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't something which warrants a cleanup template. The use of passive voice may make for less punchy prose, but doesn't negatively impact an article to the point where it really needs tagged. By the time you're talking about stuff like this then you really want peer review, not cleanup tags. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't decided yet. This template doesn't really differ from {{Inappropriate person}} in the sense that both suggest grammatical changes. So I am not convinced with the deletion reasons. On the other hand, why we didn't have this template till now? Is this a sign that we don't really need it? --Magioladitis (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, {{Inappropriate person}} would make an excellent TFD candidate itself. It doesn't help it's own cause that the template is misused, where either no first person sentences are apparent or simply don't exist (I saw one case where it was added apparently because someone used "our" in a sentence!) It's often being placed smack dab in the middle of prose as well, as though users think that it'll be an inline template or something.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - exactly per SlimVirgin's rationale and analogy. PL290 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Too nitpicky. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There's absolutely nothing wrong with the use of passive voice. If there are tone issues, use {{tone}}, or maybe {{copyedit}}. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. You cannot transmute bad prose into good by executing a search-and-destroy for a single grammatical construction. Strad (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete the template and erase the area of disk. As SV and others have said, the passive voice can be entirely appropriate. Even when the wording of an article is unfortunate, it does not deserve this blot on the landscape. Thincat (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Ironically, the passive-voice phrase "is experienced by readers as stilted" appearing in this template is experienced by me as stilted. But that's really not a property of the passive voice; just a copyediting problem. This template is pointless. Ntsimp (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template confuses the technique (passive voice) with the problem (obfuscation, vagueness, etc.). It's easy to write obfuscated or vague prose with the active voice too. There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se. Eubulides (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. I agree completely with SlimVirgin's rationale.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Problems specified in the template aren't necessarily caused by passive voice. A {{copyedit}} tag would suffice, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, and good riddance. The passive voice is grammatical English, not an error. Poor writing is a separate issue. Ozob (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed this template because I was looking for a way to tag articles in which passive voice is used consistently to disguise either the editor's or the domain's lack of knowledge. Unless I am a domain expert I cannot fix these problems, so a tag seemed like a good approach. Perhaps an article or section tag is too big a mallet and it would be more helpful to flag each such instance of passive voice with {{who}} tags. I am a bit surprised by the vehemence of the objections and lack of balance in this discussion but I can see that just the presence of the template might encourage its abuse. Jojalozzo 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Despite the tag's explanatory wording (which only editors who look closely will see), it convinces casual readers that the passive voice is inherently bad writing, which is not so. We should find another way to address the issues that Jojalozzo has pointed out. A weasel words tag might help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redundant and plain wrong. (Passive voice should be cherished by us not avoided by us at all costs...) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not as invested in this discussion as others who appear to find the availability of a template offensive and threatening. The template in question does not say passive voice is wrong or inappropriate, it says that an article or section may be misusing passive voice and to consider alternatives. Since, as others have noted, the template itself uses passive voice it seems odd that so many interpret our acceptance of the template as a determination that passive voice is bad. A good number of the delete positions strike me as irrationally knee-jerk and poorly argued. I am guessing that there is history that I am not aware of and that many who object to this template have good reason to do so even though I am not able to discern it from the responses. Jojalozzo 02:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with style recommendations like this is that a lot of people tend to apply them rigidly and without attention to the context. Every so often the subject of the passive voice will come up on WT:MOS, and the consensus is always that the passive voice is sometimes good and sometimes bad: The problem is not that editors sometimes use the passive voice, but that editors sometimes write poorly. But unlike most constructions in English, the passive voice is subjected to abuse, and for a reason (that it is less direct) that is not even true. (Consider, for example, my previous sentence: I could have written, "Some subject the passive voice to abuse," but this only draws attention away from "the passive voice", which is my real topic.) I think the strong reaction you're seeing is the defensive formation so often assumed by those of us who prefer clear writing to an arbitrary prohibition; even though the template really is about clear writing, we all see a short slippery slope down to forbidding good and grammatical English. Ozob (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Ozob has put it well. Jojalozzo, a little further up this page I actually thought you summed up exactly why this template should be deleted, when you said, "Perhaps an article or section tag is too big a mallet and it would be more helpful to flag each such instance of passive voice with {{who}} tags." Yes: "each instance" is exactly the granularity at which to consider whether to use active or passive voice, just as it is the granularity at which to consider whether to use a semicolon. Additionally, in a scenario where this tag might be used, the person originally perceiving a problem presumably (we hope) formed that impression by considering a certain sentence; if that editor is unable to fix the sentence, then tagging the whole article, while simulaneously losing the fact of which sentence or sentences the editor is actually questioning, is hardly helpful. And a "too big a mallet" tag may well trigger a "too big a mallet" response from another editor who somehow mistakenly believes that passive voice is generally a bad thing—a belief which, as Ozob notes, while it has not gained consensus in discussions at WT:MOS, does surface from time to time. PL290 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I don't buy the semi-colon analogy since I haven't seen any articles where semi-colons were misused in most sentences but I have seen articles where passive voice is abused throughout. The semi-colon analogy would apply as well (or as poorly) to other cleanup templates like style, colloquialisms, jargon, no? The article that led me to propose this template is Psychonaut which already has an issues template listing tone, style, essay, person, etc. but from my reading it's excessive, weaseling use of passive voice that is behind the tone, style, essay problems and there is no way to flag this pervasive issue without larding the text with tags. I will see if a talk page discussion will address this without requiring an article page tag... Jojalozzo 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yikes! Psychonaut is pretty bad, and it misuses the passive voice all over the place. What I don't see, however, is a way to fix the article without adding citations. Take, for instance, the sentence "Ritual is often employed for purposes of grounding and centering one's self, to set one's focus and intentions, and to instill a conception of the significance and depth of psychonautical practice." One could easily take out the passive voice to get: "Psychonauts employ ritual for the purposes of grounding and centering themselves, setting their focus and intentions, and instilling a concepting of the significance and depth of psychonautical practice." This is better than the original; but the original has a citation needed template hung off the end, and this needs it too. In fact, the whole article needs references. I worry that if someone fixes the prose but doesn't add references, then the reader will be fooled into thinking the article is good... Ozob (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The reverse, i.e. add citations and without fixing the passive voice and other weaseling, would be just as bad though, right? I just added more individual tags there. It's quite ugly and difficult to read but I think it's what those who oppose the passive voice template prefer. The individual tags more clearly guide editors in addressing the ambiguities and weaseling but with a significant degradation in readability. Jojalozzo 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the adding citations without fixing the style would be a little better than the other way around; good writing is desirable, but references are policy. I agree that the article won't be tolerable until both are addressed, but I think that if someone finds references then a lot of the style problems will go away without much effort. Once you have a reference, it's easy to change the ugly Psychonautics may be considered an attempt to generate a user's manual for human consciousness to something like Doe et al consider psychonautics an attempt to generate a user's manual for human consciousness. Without the reference, there's the temptation to rephrase the sentence as a statement: Psychonautics is an attempt... This is still an opinion, but now it sounds confident and authoritative, so it might deceive the reader.
I think I like the article better with a swarm of tags over it. They express something to the reader that the text itself doesn't. Ozob (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's good. Much better. Great outcome. PL290 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm done here. Jojalozzo 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a good discussion providing ways of how to properly tag pages. I am closing it soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Question Is this still here?!? I think the snowball must be 100 feet wide by now and coming towards your house! RUN!!!!!! --Jubilee♫clipman 09:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was busy yesterday closing other TfDs. Here you are now. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:ROCrecognition-number[edit]

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 Speedy deleted by Bearian (talk · contribs) with the reason "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:ROCrecognition-number (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant of {{ROCrecognition}}. The latter could easily be modified to perform the same function as this template, but I don't know how do it. Can someone assist me in making something like {{ROCrecognition|link=no}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment the previous version of {{ROCrecognition}}, did indeed do the function of this template on it's own, see oldid = 282253843. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary when you revert {{ROCrecognition}} to oldid=282253843. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I created this template and I'm fine if it's deleted as long as the "link=no" parameter is added to {{ROCrecognition}}. Unfortunately, I don't know how to add it either. 70.29.210.242, unless I'm missing something, the version you pointed out doesn't do what Justin is asking for. Laurent (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply Whoops, I was too quick in reading what was being said. At any rate, the old version did not require a secondary template that was bare text, and a link=no would be a good addition. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Just not necessary. Bazonka (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:Cycling past winner mid[edit]

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cycling past winner mid (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Deprecated. Used to be used as part of a set but no longer required and no longer used. SeveroTC 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - orphaned and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
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.