Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

June 1

Template:Pope Stephen title

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) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pope Stephen title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unuseful, and useless as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 2 June 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:Player-flagless

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) 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Player-flagless (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 1 June 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:Dp cadj3

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) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dp cadj3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 1 June 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:Deutsche Post Beteiligungen Holding

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) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deutsche Post Beteiligungen Holding (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 1 June 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:DateSmall

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) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{date}} with a |size=small (and a |size=big and |size=normal) parameter. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- why would we do that if no one has expressed a desire for that feature? also, I would say that would be redundant to {{small|{{date}}}} which requires fewer keystrokes. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, there is no need to add unused features to a template which has survived without them. This can safely be deleted without any modifications to {{date}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:03, 4 June 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:Dabmaint

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) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 1 June 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:Cultivar group

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) 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cultivar group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cultivar group members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the rest of the Cultivar templates were deleted years ago (Template:Cultivar begin, ... Template:Cultivar end). Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 1 June 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:Country data FOTW

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) 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data FOTW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 1 June 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:Top box

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) 23:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bottom box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 1 June 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:BSRpx

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) 04:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused outside of userspace, should be userfied or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 1 June 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:Ateneo de Zamboanga University

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) 04:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ateneo de Zamboanga University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 11 June 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:Ateneo de Naga University

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) 04:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ateneo de Naga University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions, doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 11 June 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:Ateneo de Davao University

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) 04:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ateneo de Davao University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink and transclusion, doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 11 June 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:DVDchart

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. WOSlinker (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created the template but i decided to merge its content to {{Albumchart}} to avoid redundancy. Now, this template is useless. As of now, no article is using the template. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. This can be speedily deleted per author request, no? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose but i don't know. If i move the page to my userspace then the redirect will be deleted right? I would like to preserve the data for further improvement. Maybe i can tweak it to be a useful template. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just move the pages to your userspace, then tag the redirects with {{db-author}}. This will preserve the pages, but delete the redirects. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 1 June 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:ASO Chlef seasons

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) 04:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASO Chlef seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink, doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one bluelink, but its still a link. I don't get why its been nominated and think it should be kept. Wbel (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of navboxes is to allow users to view other articles on the same topic. With just one link, it's pointless. If more seasons of this show are made, this template can be recreated then. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but allow for recreation when there are at least three. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 11 June 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:Neowitchcraft

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, redundant to the existing navigation boxes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Problematic & redundant (cf templates: witchcraft, wiccaandwitchcraft, paganism. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we already have Template:WiccaandWitchcraft, Template:Neopaganism, ... this is simply redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I think it could be kept and improved. It focuses on the Witchcraft-based Neopagan religions, and not on the general concept of witchcraft. The footer Template:WiccaandWitchcraft is confusionary since it mixes Wicca and general Contemporary Witchcraft. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that you are the creator of the template.
A template of links should not "focus" on one article, particularly when that article is itself so old, unfocused, and desperately in need of revision that it doesn't come anywhere near current WP standards. Templates should reflect unifying priciples that naturally connect multiple articles, which is simply not the case here.
The validity of the view that there are some Neopagan religions that are "Witchcraft-based" and others that are not is itself highly questionable.
While witchcraft and wicca are distinct, Template:WiccaandWitchcraft and Template:Neopaganism address most of what is relevant to which we can put "movements", "founders", etc (the section headers of your template).
If the intent is to highlight contemporary witchcraft as the performance of specific techniques then Template:Witchcraft already exists to cover this. Autumnalmonk (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the template:Neopaganism-sidebar is far more relevant and useful in places where this sidebar has been placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnalmonk (talk • contribs) 05:57, 21 May 2012 (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) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. Please let's not have multiple overlapping navigation templates due to what is presumably philosophical forks in new age religion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 1 June 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:Ausdaytimeschedule

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) 04:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template has only one blue link and is only transcluded onto two articles. Dianna (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nb: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (3rd nomination). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one bluelink and that article is at AfD. Doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 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:Ununquadium

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Now that elements 114 and 116 have officially been named flerovium and livermorium, the templates {{Ununquadium}} and {{Ununhexium}} – which were unused anyway – have become not only superfluous, but even deleterious. It is not clear what they should produce – does an editor who uses {{Ununquadium}} not know that the element has received an official name, in which case "Fl" is the appropriate result, or is this an intended reference to the temporary name, in which case "Uuq" should result. The simplest way to avoid such problems is to delete these two templates. --Lambiam 03:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we now have {{flerovium}} and {{livermorium}} for those new official names. No objection to hist-merging into them and redirecting, but I don't think it's worth the effort. The header at the Category:Chemical element symbol templates parent-cat explains the purpose of these; pick a common element and then see "what links here" for examples of use. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just run a bot to change the old to the new usage. Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not needed; the old templates are not transcluded anywhere. --Lambiam 06:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the new names; since they are previous names, and the new names are "new". 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we know that is the likely intention of the editor using the old templates? --Lambiam 06:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are conscientious editors, they will review what they saved and see that it doesn't say "Uux", but has a two letter representation, so will know if their own usage is correct or not, since these templates are not currently in use, it doesn't matter if they don't intend to use them that way, since they cannot use them in any other way once redirected. IF they want to use it the old way, it seems like you want to KEEP them the way they are to allow use the old way, but then why are you calling for their DELETION? So redirection works by using an alternate name for the current topic. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new names. Yes the old names are outdated, but they are stil technically existent and correct. No editor should be told "wrong" when entering {{Ununquadium}} while there can be this resolving Redirect to the right page. Basically one of the reasons why Redirects exist. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take, for example, the following text from List of pangrams#Chemical element symbols as it was just a day ago:
"The two Us in Uuq (ununquadium) prevent its use."

A reasonable way of conveying the same information would have been to enter the wikitext:
"The two Us in {{ununquadium}} prevent its use."

With a redirect, this becomes incomprehensible; there are no Us in Fl. An editor may well intend and reasonably expect "{{ununquadium}}" to produce "Uuq", not "Fl". My concern is that an editor may obtain an unintended and wrong result without a warning of any kind. --Lambiam 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: about the example. An editor who would perform de proposed deletion would carefully check the effects say via the What Links Here list, especially for mainspace transclusions. An editor who would create the redirect would do ... the same. Future edits that invoke the old name will see the effect right away by Preview or Save. Would that editor let an error stay unchanged, we cannot prevent that - ever. WP solves that in a different way as we know. My point is that the old name my be around for a while in the world (think printed paper), and there is no reason to give a red link or nonhit while there is a correct Redirect solution. (btw, had someone created those Redirects earlier, there would not have been a need for TfD on this at all). -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also the existence of {{Ununbium}} for element 112 (however, {{Unununium}} for element 111 is a redirect to the new name, and {{Ununnilium}} for element 110 doesn't even exist). Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying "these should be deleted and not just redirected because otherwise that may cause inconsistencies in the existing transclusions" is that a deletion would mean substituting all of the existing uses, which would have the same effect. In all likelihood there are few cases where a redirect will cause significant clarity problems in existing deployments, while keeping a redirect is the most user-friendly result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are no "existing uses". These are orphaned templates. My concern is solely about possible future uses. --Lambiam 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop "concerning". possible future uses? Drop it. Use Redirect, skip TfD. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping these name, as anyone who's using the templates will have looked at the articles and thus will know the connection between the two. Dmacks talks about this potentially not being worth the effort — blanking a page and replacing its contents with #REDIRECT [[]] is less effort than a TFD or almost anything else. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 2 June 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:Show box

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) 23:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Show box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

it appears the editor was trying to move the show/hide button in template:hidden, but this would be a failed attempt. the hidden template does have functionality for moving the show/hide button, so if more functionality is needed, then add it there. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 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:SonicXEpisode

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) 23:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphan. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 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:Sport Club do Recife

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) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sport Club do Recife (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphan. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serves no purpose and is a copyright violation. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 7 June 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.