Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20[edit]

Template:Olympic Games Nordic skiing[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) 00:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games Nordic skiing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally redundant considering everything listed on this page already has an article and this article has no information which couldn't be found on those articles. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 23:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a template, not an article. It's a navbox, there shouldn't be any information on this template that isn't found in the linked to articles. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose navigation template The Banner _talk 13:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Thincat (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2012 (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:User cabal beacon[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) 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User cabal beacon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and essentially redundant to {{wikibreak}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A humorous way of saying kinda the same thing. We do permit sillyness here. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- so, userfy? it is unused and has been unused for a long time. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and unneeded. This isn't some broadly-applying objective notice, and the "humorous" presentation is useful only to those who are "in" on it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:16, 23 December 2012 (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 bmodel[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bmodel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused external link infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and author-blanked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK

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:Official website icon[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, a better place to add this would be in the {{official}} template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Official website icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Official webpage icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New templates, redundant to {{Official}}. The common practice is to use {{Official}}, which already outputs "Official Website" and doesn't need additional tags. We don't place this tag inside citations, and citations shouldn't really point just to the main website anyway. And there is rarely more than one official site. Both templates were created without discussion by CsDix (talk · contribs) and all uses appear to be added by them as well. Additional discussion: Template_talk:Official_website#Edit_request_on_8_December_2012. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete official webpage icon, keep and the official website icon.
As regards "created without discussion", am I meant to ask somewhere first before creating anything..? (If so, apologies, as I've also created some redirects and one or two categories and other templates.) CsDix (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) You're not meant to, but we already had the main template used on 75k articles, and creating a new style of formatting is something that should be discussed. I don't see what utility another template has, and you haven't explained this or why we need redundancy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps difficult to believe, if {{official}} appears in 75k articles, but I created the template because I hadn't seen anything like it (unlike the (Language) templates it's derived from). I've been looking almost exclusively at articles on countries or dependencies/territories/etc. CsDix (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've since found myself looking at articles on "geopolitical organizations" and, hey presto, have finally noticed an instance of {{official}}. CsDix (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one is blaming you. But, now that you have seen it, it should be clear that it is redundant, unless you have some other compelling reason to keep it. I don't see why material on official websites should be explicitly tagged in citations. While things like language or subscription requirements are important to access the info, the domain name really isn't. In short, there is no consensus to use it, and if and when there is, we can easily recreate the template(s). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious why CsDix took the response to his editprotected request at template talk:official website ("Sorry, but this is unnecessary") to mean "please fork this template and use it anyway". Our uses of {{linknote}}-style labels on links at present is exclusively for warnings AFAICS, not simply as metadata. I'm not sure that we want that to change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't what I had in mind – it was an "icon" like e.g. {{en icon}} to indicate that the link following is an official website if/when that isn't part of its name (or would otherwise need to be named thus, using e.g. {{official}}). CsDix (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2012 (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.

Football player statistics[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) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football player statistics 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player statistics 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player statistics 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player statistics 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player statistics 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player statistics end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following discussions here and here, there is a consensus (or at least a general opinion!) that these tables are complicated & unwieldy, and that a standard WikiTable suffices. Many established editors cannot implement them, let alone new editors and IPs, and the fact that it requires 6 templates in conjunction seems ridiculous. A far as I can tell they were all created by one user, and implemented without consensus - but as shown by the discussions above there is consensus that they should not be used. Giant Snowman 13:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've always found the above templates quite complicated, and prefer Wikitables. Perhaps it would be useful for other viewers of this TfD to provide examples of the two types so they can easily see the differences. If the TfD was agreed what would the process be in converting them to Wikitables, although maybe for unsourced tables we should just delete them? Eldumpo (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As GiantSnowman states, these are hopelessly opaque and hardly save on typing from just using the (far more flexible) wikitable syntax directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is absolutely no need for templates where a simple (and far more user-friendly) wikitable will suffice. – Pee Jay 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Templates reduces the size articles and eliminate the need to repeat the same table headers in hundreds of articles. Can be removed except the last, which really is trivial. --Lexusuns (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The size difference is minor and more than worth it for the ease it brings to edit. No idea what the rest of your comment means, please can you clarify? Giant Snowman 15:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last template can be removed. --Lexusuns (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with GiantSnowman. The size difference, as a proportion of the size of a full article, is negligible and therefore a non-argument. Plus, every time the template is transcluded, it puts load on the servers to have to go and retrieve the template code as well as the article content. – Pee Jay 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think it's clear that wikitables are sufficient & that these templates are unnecessary, overcomplicated & fly in the face of consensus. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Templates are more of a hinderance when you consider competitions such as Divisional play-off, cups such as Football League Trophy and the like.--Kingjamie (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (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:Navbox Kavajë District[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) 00:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox Kavajë District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Effectively a double of Template:Navbox Kavajë. As the other template is wider in scope, this one is superfluous. The Banner _talk 00:31, 20 December 2012 (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:ZhSZV[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) 00:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (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.