Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 15
June 15
[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) 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
merged with Ponthir railway station. Frietjes (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, and replaceable by a location map. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Religionin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial; purpose unclear; no use for it anyway. Also, of course, unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:PerseusBCS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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; deleted as G2 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a template. Content copied-and-pasted from List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service. SuperMarioMan 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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; deleted as G2 by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a template; rather, it seems to be an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. Moreover, the page consists almost exclusively of the same paragraph of text copied over and over again. SuperMarioMan 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused template. The file File:GoldenGuppyAward.png that is used in the template is broken/lost. I suggest to delete both the file and the template. MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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:Fantagraphics/*
[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) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Fantagraphics/archive collections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/archive collections/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/awards/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/comics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/comics/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/creators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/creators/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/imprints (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/imprints/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/magazines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/magazines/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/people/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/translations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fantagraphics/translations/child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
these subtemplates are no longer needed after I restructured {{Fantagraphics}}. there could be a case for a history merge, but I haven't checked yet. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No longer required. Perhaps a history merge for /comics, since it seems to be have been edited fairly substantially. The others can just be deleted, I think. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. That said, I don't see why we have all the children navboxes still on the 'restructured' template. One template could probably handle the entirety of those subtemplates. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Extlink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{plain link}}, suggest replacing then deleting. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Day Name Abbrev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused after this edit. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Dqi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:DinoCom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
suggest either userfy or substitute/delete. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I replaced this in two articles, where it was redundant to {{WebCite}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment how is this redundant with WebCite? If it isn't archived at WebCite, then why would you want to claim that it is? (Say if you use the Wayback Machine archive.) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I never said it was redundant to WebCite in all cases, just in the two cases where it was in use. if you want to use Wayback Machine, then use {{Wayback}}. as far as I know, these are the top two, and there aren't any others which are actively being used on WP. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I misinterpreted your meaning. Though there are other archives, such as http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ ; https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ ; etc. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- yes there are others (I changed your urls to searches for links to these archives on WP). the typical way to link to these is with the
|archiveurl=parameter in templates like {{citation}}.Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- yes there are others (I changed your urls to searches for links to these archives on WP). the typical way to link to these is with the
- Ok, I misinterpreted your meaning. Though there are other archives, such as http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ ; https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ ; etc. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I never said it was redundant to WebCite in all cases, just in the two cases where it was in use. if you want to use Wayback Machine, then use {{Wayback}}. as far as I know, these are the top two, and there aren't any others which are actively being used on WP. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment incidentally, is MW:Extension:ArchiveLinks active on Wikipedia? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cite ccv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused and deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Citat5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
we already have enough quote templates, and this one is not the best since it makes the quote hard to read. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Text is hard to read. Template is unused. Also, it uses German quotation marks for some reason, and I don't know why we would need them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:BusinessWeek (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused EL ticker template. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. In the past, admins have deleted unused external link templates under CSD G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Box right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
old and replaced by {{sidebar}}, {{infobox}}, ... Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Indiscriminate list with no real connection other than job and nationality. Better served by lists and categories than a navbox. Imagine if we had a Template:American film crew. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- comment I am indifferent to whether or not this template is deleted, but I fully support it being removed from {{Cinema of the Philippines}}. I created it while splitting up this version of that template, but I can see how it's just too much for one navbox. I would actually like to see the {{Cinema of the Philippines}} template restored to this version, which is in line with the other Cinema of templates. other alternatives to completely deleting the {{Filipino film crew}} would be to split it into subtemplates, but as I said, I really don't have a strong opinion about this. My only strong opinion is that the {{Cinema of the Philippines}} is currently horribly bloated. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - the {{Cinema of the Philippines}} template is completely out of hand. This version is definitely much more appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Should we delete Template:Philippine film schools, Template:Philippine film awards, and Template:Philippine production companies and film studios too? as they were only created by your split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see the
{{Cinema of the Philippines}}template formally split first, as you have here, then we can discuss each of the split templates. the last time I attempted to split that template, it was quickly reverted. not all of these subtemplates are horribly bloated. I would say delete the film awards one, but keep film schools and film studios/production companies. the film awards one is basically redundant to the current version of the main "Cinema of the Philippines" template. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see the
- Should we delete Template:Philippine film schools, Template:Philippine film awards, and Template:Philippine production companies and film studios too? as they were only created by your split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - the {{Cinema of the Philippines}} template is completely out of hand. This version is definitely much more appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:NENAN: template contains only two links. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Un-imagewhoops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Seemingly unused ( but this one is typically subst). Nominally it covers the same area as the di-nolicense user side but in less FORMAL sense. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not needeed, per nominator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Completely redundant to {{Di-no license-notice}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary, non-standard and redundant (and I don't like pink!!! And the aesthetics are all wrong!!!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Perfectly functional and aesthetic. Keep the rest too.Greg Bard (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- But it can only be applied t one page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- These should really have been mass-nominated. Everything I said regarding {{category-Logic/header}} applies equally here, with the addition of the garish colouring (ironic for a template on aesthetics, no?). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete this one and the rest. there is no need for such a large banner at the top of a category. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused an unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete this one and the rest. there is no need for such a large banner at the top of a category. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, unneeded and, well, "unaesthetic". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete this one and the rest. there is no need for such a large banner at the top of a category. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and unneeded. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete this one and the rest. there is no need for such a large banner at the top of a category. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus, if you still feel it should be deleted, feel free to start a new discussion and perhaps notify editors by posting a note in one of the forums for discussing clean up tags. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Rank order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. Removing a useful feature for readers in order to make things "easier" for editors. Wikipedia should not put editors above readers. Pristino (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't agree more. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Clueless opposition does not make that opposition logical. Did you stop for one second to think about the purpose of the template? See Help:Sorting. See:
Category:Tables needing initial alphabetical sortCategory:Tables that may need to be sorted alphabetically.
- It is a good idea to keep lists and tables in some kind of initial non-random sort order. Numbered rank order is difficult to maintain, as the rankings can change. So, for example; alphabetical order is usually better for lists of country data. For example; List of countries by public debt.
- Rank order is difficult to maintain in a list as the list is updated. So it is oftentimes necessary to remove numbered rank columns from tables of country data. People keep adding more nations, but have difficulty renumbering all the ranks each time a nation is added. It takes too long. One may have to change dozens of numbers every time the rank of a single nation has changed. This discourages people from updating the list. If they do update the list, they may not bother to update the rank order. So the list becomes more and more incorrect over time.
- In this case, it is better to remove the rank column, and then put the table in alphabetical order by nation. To do this remove the rank column. Then make sure the nation column is the first column. Then it is easy to alphabetize a nation list. One way is to use the freeware Notetab Light. Paste the list into a new page in Notetab Light. Click on the "modify" menu, then "lines", and then "sort".
- Then put back |- between each line. Do that via find-and-replace. Replace ^p with ^p|-^p
- ^p is the underlying text editor code for line breaks in Notetab.
- |- is the wikitext for a table row.
- Copy the alphabetically-ordered table to the article. Save the page. Then people will see the list table in alphabetical order when they first open the page. If they want to see the data in ascending or descending numerical order they can click the sort buttons at the top of number columns. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is just as easy to copy the table, remove the table code ("|-", etc.), replace the cell separation code ("||") with tabs using Notepad (Windows, built-in) or TextEdit (Mac, built-in) and paste into Excel or Google Docs (free). Type "1" and "2" in the first two rows of the rank column, select both cells and then fill out the rest by dragging down the little blue square on the lower-right corner of the second cell. Then add back the table code and you're done. It takes less than a minute. Pristino (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- And, by the way, that text you just pasted from Help:Sorting was added by yourself to that page. Pristino (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that this is something that might require a cleanup tag, though not with Timekeeper's obnoxious pasting of the whole help section in question into this TfD. That said, it needs cleaned up so that it looks like a normal cleanup template, and reworded to suggest that it may be inappropriate to order by rank depending on the subject (not all ranked attributes change rapidly, and as stated in the delete comments ordering by rank is done for the benefit of readers, who may or may not have the ability to reorder the template by JavaScript). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may have seemed obnoxious, but Pristino tried to delete that longstanding info from Help:Sorting today. I take your point though that "may" is better wording. I reworded the template and the category name. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I replaced (not deleted) that information from Help:Sorting AFTER you pasted it here, thus your point in invalid. Pristino (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I had a feeling you might try deleting that info. Also, I posted it here so people would understand the specific issue without having to dig through Help:Sorting, which covers many very complex issues. You deleted that longstanding info. See this diff. I returned it, clarified it further, and made it more clear that it was a suggestion and not a demand (per Chris Cunningham's comment). See this diff. On the talk page I wrote, "I reverted your removal of longstanding info. Feel free to create a new section on maintaining rank order." See this diff. You created that new section. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I replaced (not deleted) that information from Help:Sorting AFTER you pasted it here, thus your point in invalid. Pristino (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may have seemed obnoxious, but Pristino tried to delete that longstanding info from Help:Sorting today. I take your point though that "may" is better wording. I reworded the template and the category name. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn't this be a cleanup template, if it were to keep existing? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- delete, this is why we have sortable tables, so the reader can choose the presentation order. if you want to have it by default in another order, then just do it. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- The reader should not have to correct an incorrectly ranked table by clicking the sort button. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Chris Cunningham converted it to a cleanup template (re 70.24.251.208 comment higher up). If people want to continue to have lots of incorrectly-ranked tables that are rarely updated, then get rid of this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This stub template is not used and not needed. Recommend deleting it Kumioko (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:LPR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Where do I start. First this template seems to violate WP:NOT making Wikipedia a directory service of current information (not unlike current telephone numbers), when Wikipedia articles should be focused on historical, older data, rather than "breaking news" or the "latest fashion" or other leading-edge information. If people want to know the latest versions of a software product, then they need to contact each software vendor, directly, and not expect Wikipedia to maintain a parts-list inventory of the latest available product specifications. Also, this template and its partner LSR both have hundreds of subpages each, some are the same between the templates but many are not. The template is frequently out of date and generally the text that appears in the template would be better as a reference or an external link rather than a template. If kept the template should be rebuilt into one page rather than hundreds of subpages. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- you need to have the template tagged with
{{tfd|type=tiny|LPR}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC) - Keep. Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria both demand an article to be broad in coverage and comprehensive. Articles on software without such critical pieces of info as version number and release date are incomplete. Addition of one version number will not turn Wikipedia into a directory. Besides, outdatedness is not a good reason for deletion. After all, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – If deleted, version updates would be edited directly in the software's main page, cluttering the edit history.
- The same reasoning applies to the template {{LSR}}, listed below. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:LSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Where do I start. First this template seems to violate WP:NOT making Wikipedia a directory service of current information (not unlike current telephone numbers), when Wikipedia articles should be focused on historical, older data, rather than "breaking news" or the "latest fashion" or other leading-edge information. If people want to know the latest versions of a software product, then they need to contact each software vendor, directly, and not expect Wikipedia to maintain a parts-list inventory of the latest available product specifications. Also, this template and its partner LPR both have hundreds of subpages each, some are the same between the templates but many are not. The template is frequently out of date and generally the text that appears in the template would be better as a reference or an external link rather than a template. If kept the template should be rebuilt into one page rather than hundreds of subpages. Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- you need to have the template tagged with
{{tfd|type=tiny|LSR}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC) - Keep. Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria both demand an article to be broad in coverage and comprehensive. Articles on software without such critical pieces of info as version number and release date are incomplete. Addition of one version number will not turn Wikipedia into a directory. Besides, outdatedness is not a good reason for deletion. After all, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. This page is
Red-locked, meaning only the Admin's can edit it. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A red-locked page is eligible for deletion just as much as any other. Whilst I don't think this template should be deleted (see below), it being protected is not (in and of itself) a reason not to delete it or to recommend the nomination be withdrawn. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, finding out the last known version is useful to at least find a decently recent version. And wikipedia will not be "done" anytime. It's a work-in-progress. Where not everything is tidy. Electron9 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per Codename Lisa — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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.