Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22

Template:Criminal due process

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, but consider renaming it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Criminal due process (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is WP:OR due to its creator cherry picking what cases to put in the template. Previous versions of the template contained longer but not total lists of cases involving these types of law. Creator of the template also had this navigation box full of redlinks in violation of WP:REDNOT. This is a navigation box, but a whole section was 100% redlinks. Redlinks or no redlinks, the cases are not complete and the choices of the editor who created the template. ...William 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is absolutely no cherrypicking. The intent of the template is to include every single U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies the Due Process Clause to criminal proceedings. Every article included in this template is included in United States constitutional criminal procedure#Due proces and List of United States Supreme Court cases involving constitutional criminal procedure#Criminal due process. No one has suggested a single case has been wrongly included or omitted (and, if the later, the solution is to add). User:WilliamJE has noinated this template for deletion after an extension discussion on the talk page over the WP:REDNOT issue was not resolved in his favor. Four users agreed that the template complies with that policy; he was the only one who did not. When he alludes to "previous versions of the template," what he refers to is the template as it existed before his intervention in nuking half of it. In fact, he even reverted it to the crippled version before nominating it for deletion (if he thinks even his preferred version deserves to be deleted, then that would seem to indicate the reasonableness of leaving the full version for the length of this discussion...). If he persists in revert warring against the consensus, a full version of the template, as advocated by those users who don't want to delete it, can be seen here. Savidan 19:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rename at end of TfD if kept - Should probably be "United States criminal due process". No comment on the discussion otherwise. --Izno (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reviewing the history of the template, I found no original research in the template. Cases that were listed were also listed in the articles noted by Savidan, and his comments on the reason for the nomination also seem to be accurate. I am a member of Wikiproject SCOTUS and Wikiproject Law, and primarily write articles on SCOTUS cases (although not in Constitutional criminal procedure, other than when it intersects with cases involving Indian (Native American) tribes). Consensus on the WP:REDNOT was against the nominator, and the reversion was against the discussion as I understood it. I concur that a rename may be appropriate once this discussion is closed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed. {{US criminal due process}} would indicate this only concerns the US. Due process is not a concept restricted to the US. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template appeared to me to be about US cases only. Additional cases would seem out of scope. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Criminal due process" is not a US only topic. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but this template is US only. I suggest {{Criminal due process in the United States}} as a title. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely as Donde states. The template would become unwieldy and tangential to any country's cases on due process if all cases about due process were included.

On the name, "United States" and "criminal due process" should be in the title, and United States shouldn't be shortened (to avoid potential ambiguation, though I don't expect that to be necessary). Don't care on the point otherwise. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know what the issue with red links is. If you don't like seeing the red links, start writing some articles. This template covers a particular encyclopedic topic. Over time, it may make sense to re-purpose some of this content into standalone articles (I worry about how many criminal due process cases there have been and whether this template will become unwieldy), but for now I don't see any reason to delete the template. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the point of deleting it. Editing would suffice if there is dispute about what cases to include. And I agree, the redlinks are good because they encourage article creation. Leucosticte (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously and snowily. The template provides useful navigational, organizational and categorizational service, which is the point of a navigation template of this sort. It is no more OR than any other nav template, or for that matter, the practice of categorization itself. The REDLINK issue is a separate content issue that has apparently been decided separately -- as it should be: content disputes are not settled in deletion discussions.

As a separate matter, I agree the template is misnamed, and should be given a name that indicates that its scope is US-only. A number of good suggestions on the new name are above; I don't express a preference. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 28 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:Education in Indonesia

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) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education in Indonesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

almost none of the links are specific to Indonesia. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 22 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:Wvsha

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) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/West Virginia/list item. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the intended use only within Wikipedia namespace? If so, then delete. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is a variant of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/West Virginia/list item, which is only used on one page. Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 23 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:XMedalTop

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) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 22 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:ZSR next start

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) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ZSR next start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ZSR next line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and unclear why we need it (appears to be a fork of {{nsb next line}}). Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 22 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:Redirected

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) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:31, 22 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:Plainblue

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, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

limited use and replaced by {{plain link|{{{1}}}|{{blue|{{{2}}}}}}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:22, 22 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:SC1

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) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SC1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:19, 22 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:Interwikis changed

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) 23:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwikis changed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

seems like it would better to just substitute and delete this. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:18, 22 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:Poem

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) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to simply using <poem>...</poem>. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Hmmm. I created this as a typing aid to create link to <poem>, but it was quietly repurposed. The previous use can be replaced by {{xtag}}, so I will check uses (checked and updated). The current use is really redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am unclear what the purpose of this template is now (it does not work for me) - I posted details at Template talk:Poem/doc. If it could be made to embed a working <poem> wrapper it would be useful. I just resort to handtyping. -84user (talk) 14:47, 23 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:Not applicable

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) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not applicable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused image icon template. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{N/a}}. Seems appropriate. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per izno. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:19, 25 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:Bread of Life Ministries International

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) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bread of Life Ministries International (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate content as a template (only one use). Already substed to Bread of Life Ministries International#Ministries. Izno (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Navbox that doesn't navigate anything. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 26 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:Infobox table tennis player

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 keep. Nominator admits that this was nominated in error. Non-admin closure. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox table tennis player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated; Template:Infobox tennis biography is the most common infobox. GoP _T ^C _N 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm, it is table tennis... close this. Sorry.--GoP _T ^C _N 21:57, 22 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:Wel

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) 23:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current algorithm used by the template to detect if a user is an IP or an account is that it checks whether {{BASEPAGENAME}} with all letters in lowercase matches {{BASEPAGENAME}} with all letters uppercased. Since IPv4 addresses contain only numbers, the two match and the template detects it as an IP. However with this algorithm, some IPv6 addresses would be detected as registered users (because they may contain letters) and the only way to solve this would be by using regular expression matches, which are not supported by any of the magic words and parser functions installed on Wikipedia, so delete the template to avoid any confusion. jfd34 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{welcome}}. {{wel}} used to be included in Friendly/Twinkle, but it isn't any more. I have always thought it is unnecessary, since welcoming users can easily determine for themselves whether to use {{welcome}} or {{welcome-anon}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:36, 26 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:Playerhistory

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 October 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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) 23:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no such website as Playerhistory.com any longer due to technical problems, so there is no use for this template as all it does is create links to dead pages. Big Dom 09:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant, website no longer exists & has no intention of returning unlike last time. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but before we do, can somebody produce a list to keep of articles the template is transcluded on. I know it's used on hundreds if not thousands, so we could see a number of BLPs losing their only reference. Giant Snowman 20:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done 1,080 articles A list can be found here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:50, 30 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:Prime Ministers and First Ladies of Malaysia

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) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prime Ministers and First Ladies of Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the older Template:Prime Ministers of Malaysia, except for Spouses, which really have nothing in common with each other and have no notability in relation to the prime ministership. CMD (talk) 10:40, 13 June 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) 04:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. The addition of the spouses serves no real purpose other than clutter. Reso lute 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:37, 26 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.