Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 23

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

April 23[edit]

Template:Aihealue/taustaväri[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) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Aihealue/taustaväri (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused, and purpose unclear Plastikspork (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per Spork. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (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:Inspector America[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) 04:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Recommend delete. Appears to be more of an articles content and even then it would need a lot of work. Doesn't appear to be notable. Kumioko (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete This isn't a template. It's an opinion piece that fails to meet any Wikipedia standard. Not even a debate here. --CPAScott (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (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:Human Weapon[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) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

This template is useless. It links together the articles for the show, the hosts and several sketchy articles for episodes of the series, none of which are notable on their own and which I have proposed for deletion. Even if any of the episode articles survive the main article on the series links the contents without needing the enormous template. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree per nomination its un needed and this listing of episodes could easily be done by incorporating into the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2011 (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:Infobox National beach soccer team[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) 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox National beach soccer team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Serves no purpose as is identical to the preferred Template:Infobox national football team. Jameboy (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (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:Scandals in India[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) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Scandals in India (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template consists only of about 20 redlinks and 2 blue links. This is not a good use of a template, especially since many of these links are highly unlikely to ever have enough information for full articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: There are many templates where the article for other geographical locations are still to be created. A template is needed to group those similar articles. There are 100s of scandals in each state in India in last 60 years. So there is enough content that can be put in those red links. I cannot make all those articles and list all those scandals as i am not from those geographical areas. But keeping this template will help in article creation and listing all scandals in each state. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose. Can be recreated if and when the articles exist. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - if there are really hundreds of notable scandals in every Indian state then a category for them would be a much better approach to a template that could potentially have thousands of entries. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
comment: There is nearly one scandal every week for fortnight, but in absence of documenting that at one central place, the people forget about them after some time. Each state must be at least having more than 100 scandals. But one person (me) can't have enough time and energy to list all those and collect from media of past. The template inspires the person visiting to start the article for his geographical location. In india corruption is the burning topic in news and India is one the verge of making a strong anti corruption law( can be checked from media news in past one month), so there is every and high possibility of all articles being created in next four months. At least the template should be given time till then. Thanks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Then the template can be recreated at that time. As I commented on your talk page, we can't have a template with 24/26 links being redlinks. Furthermore, look at List of scandals in India by state. Most states have only a few (or even zero) scandals listed. Right now, almost none of those would actually qualify for an independent article. While redlinks can be used to help inspire new articles, I don't believe it's appropriate to actually create a template for that purpose. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, The template can be deleted, if others feel so. No problem Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: per nom. Abhishek Talk to me 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The template can be deleted, But can we asnwer a question: There are nearly 100's of scandals in each state. Who will take the the pain to start the article for that particular state ? or should be delete the template to simply close the efforts to list those scandals. Thanks. (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).
    • The issue is that the someone actually needs to write articles that meet Wikipedia stadards, such as WP:Notability and WP:Verfiability, before there is any need for a navigational box, Sadads (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (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:Hang on[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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

No use after the button. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • There is currently one transclusion, but obviously the neat new button resolves this in a better way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I occasionally see it used, with a parameter, by experienced users. Also, newbies may have become accustomed to using this template for delaying speedy deletions. While it is not nearly as useful as it once was, it still has its place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. Surely anyone visiting a page with a speedy tag can see quite clearly the large button which has supplanted this template, and which does not require any special skill to use? TMTOWTDI is often a bad idea UI-wise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially for newbies, there may be some considerable time (minutes, hours) between when the editor wishes to contest and is able to put together an articulated statement of why. "hang on" means that the rationale is coming. It does not interfere with the speedy deletion if it's truly warranted, but if it makes an admin think, "hey, this was just posted 10 minutes ago, I think I'll hold off for a while," it's worthwhile. TJRC (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep as defective TfD listing. This TfD discussion is still not properly listed after over 3 weeks, Step 1 has never been completed. This is a long standing and at times widely used template, so proper notification of the community is critical. If we still think it should be deleted, open a new TfD and tag the template next time. Monty845 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral It might be better just to put a deprecated notice on it and keep it for historical reference. It wouldn't clog up the tubes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've suggested in an accidental subsequent nomination of the same template that any instances of the template still in use be removed and a {{Tdeprecated}} notice be put up to signify this, as well as warn away any editors that might still continue to use the old system. Perhaps after a significant lapse of time, say sixth months, when everybody becomes adjusted to the new system, it can be deleted. But right now, it is still in major use on many pages, and there are still some who like to use it. @Monty845, this nomination should not purely be kept on procedural grounds, as placing the {{tfd}} tag would require sysop permissions to edit the protected template, and save that last step the nomination has been followed through completely. Plus an editprotected message was given on the talkpage to at least attempt to resolve this problem, but it is now stale. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to some of the reasons already stated, there are about 5,800 links to this template in talk warning notices and elsewhere. Turning all those into red links is not a good idea. More importantly, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Alternative solution. We are still working on integrating the hang on tag functionality back. Basically, the new process is considered superior to the former "hang on process", but it was a tradeoff; hang on did provide some features that we have lost, including the ability to have a dedicated category: Contested candidates for speedy deletion which was not possible with the new method, and the other one I implemented, Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages, is not a perfect substitute. If we can get the javascript working and approved for a sitewide change then the next evolution of the {{db-meta}} button will be that when a user clicks on it they will still be taken to the preloaded talk page just as they are now, but hang on will be automagically placed on the article page at the same time. All this is to say that in the next few weeks hang on may be in daily use again. And if it isn't, we can revisit this in six months.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, still being developed for a better button solution by me and Eraserhead (talk · contribs), see Fuhghettaboutit's comment above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Fetchcomms and others. Just because we have a shiny new button, there is no reason to deprecate a template that has entered the consciousness of thousands of editors and readers. Keeping it as an alternative to the button is not harmful to our project. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does it do harm? I use it all the time (just did) when someone incorrectly removes the CSD template; I undo and add a courtesy hang-on. Without this template I'd have to make one extra step, and I like to make the appropriate edit summary. See [1]. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (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:ACC Wrestling[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) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Unused navbox with all red links. Logan Talk Contributions 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I made this template with the intention of eventually creating the articles to go with it. If it's deleted now, I will just remake it at a later date when I get around to making the articles. Dincher (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (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.