Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12

Template:Cat vgr

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat vgr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No articles use this and does not appear to be serving any purpose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 12 October 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:Left-floating table

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Left-floating table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only once, and duplicates functionality provided by {{stack}} and {{stack begin}} with the "float=left" option. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now effectively obsoleted {{wrapper}} and {{wrapper left}}, that I had also renamed to {{right-floating table}} and {{left-floating table}}, resp., but per Template talk:Stack begin#Purpose these old 'wrapper' templates don't significantly differ in purpose from the 'stack' templates and could just easily be made to redirect or wrap around them. Specifically l-f t is {{stack begin|float=left}}, and the remaining CSS differences should be largely irrelevant. Even if not, they can be added later as optional parameters to the stack begin template. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:55, 17 October 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:Afd-piracy

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 to User:SarekOfVulcan/Afd-piracy without redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afd-piracy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

or Userfy does not help in building the encyclopedia and confuses editors.Curb Chain (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we already have a template to use when AfD's are blanked due to privacy reasons. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy it might be fun for the user. That's Pirates not Privates or Parrots or Poirots. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. Doesn't hurt anything, no evidence given that editors are actually confused by it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't hurt doesn't mean we should keep it. How does this prevent an endless number of useless pages from being created?Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of a WP:NOHARM argument.Curb Chain (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Template:Afd-piracy. Humor does not belong in template space, but does belong in Wikipedia space, and this move is the correct solution to situations like this. Do not delete or userfy, as it is of acceptable quality to exist in Wikipedia space, as many other humorous pieces do. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documented humor may belong in Wikipedia space if it helps editors improve the project. Our encylopedias are multicultural so this is indeed confusing to people who have never encountered pirate language.Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but so? Lots of things are confusing to somebody and this can't always be helped. It's marked as humor, so I don't see a problem. If it wasn't funny, that'd be one thing. But it is. Herostratus (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it improve the project? It may be funny to you, but not to others. And I may make something funny, and you may not get the humor. I see no reason to keep something that is not understandable by all cultures.Curb Chain (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If SoV really wants to keep this then userfication is uncontroversial. You'd think at least the author would have transcluded it somewhere, mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was at one time (which is when I watchlisted it). IIRC, a day or so after International Talk Like a Pirate Day, the transclusions were switched out to the standard template. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Hmmm: we can't set up a fake interwiki space at pirate: for these, can we? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it was transcluded _somewhere_ when I created it, but darned if I remember where at this point.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is very relevant. Pirate is more confusing than it is not, and I see no reason to allow Wikipedians create a new orthography for the English language.Curb Chain (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain, its clear that you aren't a new editor, so which account did you edit from prior to 7 April 2011? --Tothwolf (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's got nothing to do with this discussion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that depends on who he is. When one's first edit contains "wp:nsr" as the edit summary, and then just a few days later, the same editor "finds" AfD and makes a properly formatted "merge" argument [1], it is obvious they aren't a brand new editor. This isn't the type of template one is going to randomly stumble across, and given who created the template, I do question the movtivations behind this rather unhelpful and non-productive TfD nomination. I could probably make some well educated guesses as to who he previously edited as, but I won't as I don't like making such guesses. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where it was transcluded, either. There is no reason why we can't move it to either projectspace or userspace, but if we opt for projectspace, it still might be best tagged with {{humor}} inside <noinclude></noinclude> since some people might not notice the Wikipedia humor category. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's tagged as humor, and lives up to the tag. Additionally, I believe a #switch should be added to {{Afd-privacy}} to use this every year on 19 September. Wikipedia needs to lighten up every now and then. →Σ τ c. 08:04, 16 October 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:Louisville Cardinals football roster

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Louisville Cardinals football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a single-use template, this template should not exist. I have substituted its content onto 2011 Louisville Cardinals football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 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:HK railway station

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HK railway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and unimproved since its creation based on existing template {{MTR Infobox }}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:33, 12 October 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:TA train station

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. Unused template + creator request equals bye-bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TA train station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, orphaned and replaced by {{TransAdelaide}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as creator. Since been orphaned/replaced by newer template. Sb617 (Talk) 00:39, 13 October 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:Dis

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. Existing usages substed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

While this could theoretically be used to create skeleton dab pages, it only supports two parameters and does so in a rather clumsy manner. While it could be extended to support more, that could be done just as easily by extending (or rewriting) {{refer}}, which has substantially wider deployment. We have too many low-use ways to do the same thing in disambiguation and it's easier for both editors and readers if we work to reduce that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should, after deletion, be recreated as a redirect to "refer". 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 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:Conflated

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. While I sense a consensus to delete, I do not, however, see any agreement on what should functionally replace it. So I'm just going to remove the references to it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two transclusions. A sort of mishmash of {{split}} (where an article discusses two topics) and {{distinguish}} (where a reader may want a similar but different page). We don't really need a standalone cleanup box for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{contradict}} and it's sisters.Curb Chain (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep conflated articles need splitting, but needing to split an article does not mean that the article conflates various topics together. Conflated articles definitely need cleanup. And conflating topics does not mean the articles are self-contradictory. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template assumes two topics are conflated together, this should be made more flexible, since there can be more than two. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being able to come up with a rationale for a cleanup template does not prove that it needs to exist. There are far more widely-deployed templates which already seem to adequately deal with the use case presented here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, other templates cover this template's intention more adequately. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 19 October 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:HIGNFY

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigates only five articles, which are all easily reachable from the parent page and not obviously interrelated otherwise. Previous TfD was a seriously weak close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:07, 12 October 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:Infobox concert

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 for now. Chris Cunningham is encouraged to make the two templates compatible with each other for a future merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poorly-named, less-well featured, and lesser-used alternative to {{Infobox concert tour}}, to which it is redundant, and with which instances should be replaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is intended for famous single concerts (one or maybe a few shows at a single venue), such as the New York Philharmonic concert of April 6, 1962, Concert for Bangladesh, The Last Waltz, Money Can't Buy, Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Special, U2 concert in Sarajevo, Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert, Atlantic Records 40th Anniversary, and so forth, whereas {{Infobox concert tour}} is intended for concert tours (shows at many different venues). There are two different categories used for articles about these things, Category:Concerts and Category:Concert tours, and it makes sense to have two different templates as well. Yes, this template is currently underused, and yes, in some cases each of these templates is incorrectly used instead of the other, but a cleanup is what is called for, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The documentation shows it being used for a tour spanning two years and several countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know where it is, fix it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should do. Here you go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest that a merge could be easily done here, since many of the critical fields fulfill the same function. Name, image, artist, album, etc., and also the succession of last, this, next. If there is a start date and no end date, only a single concert date would need to be shown. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wasted Time R. Naturally this template will receive less use as individual concerts are, in general, less notable than the tours that comprise them. That said, there are concerts which pass the threshold of notability, of which a few examples have been listed above. I don't consider {{Infobox concert}} redundant to {{Infobox concert tour}} any more than {{Infobox single}} is redundant to {{Infobox song}}. They both serve their own unique purposes. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for two separate templates here. The difference between a one-off show and a series of events requires little more than the omission or alteration of a handful of fields. I'm working on bringing the two templates onto similar codebases, after which one can be trivially rolled into the other. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. It sometimes takes a demo, for people who are not familiar with the functioning of an Infobox, to understand how this will work. I tried to explain it above - but obviously failed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When that new/modified template comes into existence then my opinion will naturally be for a merge instead. But while they remain two distinct entities, serving distinct purposes, keep is the way to stay in my opinion. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A requirement of deletion would be that the templates be merged anyway in most cases; such a result here certainly wouldn't mean simply deleting all the existing transclusions of {{infobox concert}} and leaving people to re-add new {{infobox concert tour}} boxes. The good work done by Andy and others in taking these to TfD simply highlights them to editors who can quickly get that work carried out, so long as the consensus isn't that the templates really do need to remain distinct. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it. --99.38.236.150 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 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:Cetacean needed

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 without redirect. Template is now located at User:Scheinwerfermann/Cetacean needed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cetacean needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two transclusions, one on an archived talk page and one of the userspace of a retired editor. Templatespace isn't the right place for jokes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beg yer pardon: Point to the policy or protocol upon which you base your assertion that humor is not permitted in templatespace, particularly given the longstanding humor categorisation of Template:Afd-piracy and Template:AFMPbox, not to mention Template:BJAODN and Template:Cheeseburger and Template:Bubble tea and Template:Chips. Please and thank you. And by the by, now I've retired I seem to be spending more time than ever editing Wikipedia, so the "retired" notice on my talk page is squishy, gooey, quicksandy ground on which to stand while proclaiming that the template in your crosshairs must be blown to kingdom come.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm of the opinion that editors who purport to be retired should be treated as such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, bless your heart! Fortunately for all of us, your opinion is not Wikipedia policy. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless template. As nom. Don't not help in the creation of the encyclopedia. All those templates Scheinwerfermann cited except for ~~{{Template:Afd-piracy}}~~{{Afd-piracy}} are wikilove templates. They can help in the building of an encyclopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Template:Cetacean needed. I also created a humorous template (WP:GUYINBAR), and a person moved it from template space (Template:cite guy in bar) to Wikipedia space (Wikipedia:Template:cite guy in bar), on the grounds that humor in template space could be confusing or whatever. This makes sense and worked fine and I recommend the same thing here. Do not delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Projectspace is not just a dumping ground for everything that doesn't belong elsewhere. I will freely admit that this raised a smile the first time I saw it, but that's hardly a reason to maintain a template for it regardless of the namespace chosen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy if the user wants it, otherwise just delete it. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe we could use it on the talk pages of editors who need to be whaled and trouted? →Σ τ c. 08:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a problem with keeping it. But I can also understand the argument against "humor in template space." Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy - Unused humour template Bulwersator (talk) 11:21, 18 October 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:Ana Bebić

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ana Bebić (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely frivolous navigation box. (Adding navboxes to articles has apparently become a popular way of Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is completely unnecessary: one doesn't need it to connect a total of one TV show and three singles (the rest was apparently added simply to make the template bigger). The subject is notable (makes WP:MUSICBIO), and that's okay, but puffing it up isn't. GregorB (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Until Ms Bebić releases an album she is barely notable and her three singles could be easily merged into the main article, rendering the template useless. Timbouctou (talk) 17:17, 17 October 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:Infobox Israel Railways station

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Israel Railways station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Creator retired in 2007. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 19 October 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.