Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Template:Infobox athletic director

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 redirect, although it doesn't appear to be completely redundant, it is not in wide spread use. A redirect will help direct users to the appropriate template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox athletic director (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox college coach has been expanded to include fields that detail service as an athletic director, rendering this template redundant. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about for ADs who have never coached? It appears most have been players, but some were never coaches. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox college coach can cover playing, coaching, and administrative careers in any combination. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a demonstration? I tried to change one, but in the preview mode, there was definite focus on the person as a coach, which is not the case for many ADs. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:12, 1 February 2011 (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:WarningsUsage

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) 02:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Old. Probably not going to be used in future. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep and use since several templates came up for deletion recently from Mhiji were claimed as unused because they were substitution templates, obviously there is a need for this. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to verify that it is not used, but I have never seen this before. Where is the "obvious need"? WP:UTM, while long, does the job nicely, as does the box at the bottom of {{templatesnotice}} (when transcluded correctly, as it is at {{uw-test1}}). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - nevermind I misinterpreted the template usage. Sorry about that. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the uw-* templates use {{Templatesnotice}} for documentation. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is intended to be a summary version of WP:WARN. It doesn't belong in the template namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2011 (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:CS deletion

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) 02:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CS deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and ambiguous template name (could be CSD); should be sent to the DELSORT team with something like "Coronation Street-related deletion discussions" and renamed to {{delsort|Coronation Street}}. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I don't see that many Coronation Street related articles getting AFDed to the point that a delsort subpage is needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the article alert bot running again, there's no need for the Coronation Street WikiProject to monitor this probably infrequently used deletion category. --Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a frequent contributor on the project, I didn't even know this existed. I suppose for that reason alone it shows it's not needed. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 17:49, 6 February 2011 (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:Cultures in standard cross-cultural sample

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 userfy so the template history can be mined, if this is not necessary, I will delete it upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cultures in standard cross-cultural sample (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a completely random list of ethnic groups (at least one of which is extinct). These articles are not related. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment The Songhai are circum-Mediterranean rather than African? Uttar Pradesh is a culture? And what the *** is Javanese/Miao? But see Standard cross-cultural sample. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i was also concern about this being placed all over and did this edit so at the minimum it would be collapsed. Moxy (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the ethnic groups are not random (although Beothuk's inclusion certainly seems to be), but this template is not relevant to the individual ethnic groups themselves and shouldn't be added to their pages. A better idea would be cleaning up this: List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I recommend cleaning up this: List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample based on the following 186 societies from Nama Hottentot to Yahgan. http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/SCCSbib.pdf. I also recommend labelling it clearly; when I alphabetisized the North American list of cultures yesterday, I thought it listed Indigenous/Aboriginal cultures (so added a few from Canada). Victoriaedwards (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought some of the terms used for Native American tribes were obsolete and offensive, but Hottentot, really?! -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment. Those terms are used in the SCCS, and those are the terms that someone looking up information about a SCCS society in WP would be using, so it's best not to confuse things by replacing them with contemporary terms. On the other hand, it might be useful, in the List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample, to put alternative or contemporary names next to the entry.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Terms such as "Hottentot" and "Papago" are unbelievably offensive, and I do not intend to use in any article except to explain that they are not appropriate for contemporary use. If proper external links or references are added to the relevant articles, people can look up Murdock's information. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. We need to use the terms our refs use. If they're offensive, then we don't use them for the article name. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "unbelievably offensive"? I think you are overly concerned. The SCCS is used primarily by anthropologists, who overall are extremely sensitive to issues of intercultural respect, and you are the first person I've heard complain about the terms used for the society names. The names in the SCCS refer to the names used in the key ethnographies for each society, and some of these ethnographies were written over 100 years ago, so a few of the names will be obsolete. But since those are the names used in the SCCS, those are the names that belong in the template.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spend some time in Indian Country. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Sorry, is this a personal attack? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is that a personal attack? It's a genuine suggestion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Please respond to my edit, instead of making suggestions about how I might correct my deficiencies. Thanks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template belongs to only one article: Standard cross-cultural sample--it provides a nice way to organize the SCCS cultures in the regions assigned by George Murdock, with maps of each region. I agree that the "template is not relevant to the individual ethnic groups themselves and shouldn't be added to their pages." --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the template is only intended to be used on one page, then fixing and using the List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample makes a lot more sense. I'm going to remove the template from the other ethnic articles it has been added to. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete in favor of improving the list instead. --Bsherr (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said above, the template was created to perform a useful function in a particular article (Standard cross-cultural sample). Deleting the template will diminish the quality of that article. I agree that the template should not be spread to other articles, and it seems to me that Uyvsdi's work in removing the template from other articles has removed the objection to the template.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're saying that this template is not a WP:Navigation template. If that is correct, why does the template use Template:Navbox? The content of the template is exactly the same as the content of the list. If the template is only intended to be used in that single article, why not simply merge in the list, and create it as a table in the main article? --Bsherr (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the template in the article to a table. Since the contents of the list article are exactly the same as the main article with the table, I've redirected the list to the main article. --Bsherr (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Yes, thanks! And I used Navbox because it was the only way I knew to make a nice looking table... one of the great things about WP is that there is always somebody who knows better just around the corner! There are still some issues left: the list doesn't match up with the 186 SCCS societies (the new table contains 210 entries)--some people seem to have added societies (thinking that the list aspired to contain all traditional societies), some people changed society names (thinking that contemporary names were preferable), and there is also the probability that whoever created the list didn't transfer all the names from the template. Nevertheless, I think Bsherr has resolved the issue for discussion on this page--the template should be deleted. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and glad it worked out for the best. It could be that whoever added the cultures to the navbox didn't add them to List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample. Even though that page is redirected, one can look at the previous revision here. Perhaps comparing the list to the table made from the template will reveal those added in error? --Bsherr (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could go about two months back in the history of the template (didn't notice any problems then)--I'll grab a copy before it is deleted. Some good edits were done in this last flurry of activity, and it would be a shame to lose them. I can work on this, as soon as I find a free hour or two... Thanks again! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2011 (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.

Association football position templates

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 userfy, as it appears the proposal did not achieve consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

These templates appear to have no use. There is no point in using a template or image where simple text will suffice. They are currently not used on any articles so their deletion should not be particularly controversial. – Pee Jay 17:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PeeJay2K3. I created this smaller templates as part of a proposal: Template:Association football game sheet, template for Association football match details. (proposal to make it standard). This proposal is in WikiProject_Football.

This are just icons for easy viewing positions of the players.

Please, Could you remove the Tfd template? (only while discussing the proposal)

Thanks in advance.

--Juliancames (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are part of a proposal or not is irrelevant, since their purpose could be served by text anyway. The TfD should stand and people should judge their !votes with all the evidence in consideration. – Pee Jay 23:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:48, 1 February 2011 (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:Island Line colour and others

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) 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Island Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tseung Kwan O Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Disneyland Resort Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer necessary. (Note: I subst'ed the sole transclusion of the Disneyland template at Disneyland Resort Line#Stations.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—prior TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_21#Several_color_templates. Airplaneman ✈ 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The arguments in the 5-year-old discussion referenced by Airplaneman are no longer relevant. WP:AUM is marked as "failed". Since these particular templates are not even used anymore, they can surely be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2011 (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:HabboSoup

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 delete by Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) at 20:17, 1 February 2011 per G11. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

template is broken and incomplete since Dec 2010. Doesn't transclude to any other article space. Not used and has not been fixed. Visik (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broken, and no scope for use if fixed. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2011 (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.