- 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) 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Theosophy2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Nominate for deletion as identical to the more used and slightly more elegant {{ Theosophy series}}. Debresser ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and redundant to the other template. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (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 speedily deleted by author Happy-melon 16:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:LOCEinuse ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned and deprecated; the LOC is no longer active and {{ GOCEinuse}} has effectively replace this template. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (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 redirect to {{quote}}. Any exceptions can be handled on a case-by-case basis (i.e., switching to cquote or explicitly adding quotation marks).
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:" ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
According to the Manual of Style, block quotations should not be surrounded in quotation marks, which is exactly what this template does. A template that makes it easy to violate the MoS is Bad and Wrong. Hairy Dude ( talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. True, but: 1) {{ cquote}} does the same in a much bolder fashion, 2) if quotation marks are the only problem, why not delete them instead of the entire template (that would, as far as I can tell, be equivalent to redirecting the template to {{ quote}}). GregorB ( talk) 17:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. ( edit conflict) Lots of other templates like this exist, e.g. {{ cquote}}, and they have correct usage. MOS:QUOTE defines a block quotation as "more than four lines", and the first use of this template I checked, Enver Hoxha, is not more than for lines, so it is appropriate. There might be a few instances of misuse, but I doesn't require template deletion. The only thing I think needed doing was a note about usage in the documentation. And I've done this using the same wording as cquote has. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point here. The MOS states, as you say, that quotes less than four lines should not use block quotes—instead, they should use in-line quotes. In the latter case, this template cannot be used, since it creates a block quotation. If a
pull quote is wanted, we have {{
cquote}}. As far as I can see, all quotations in the Enver Hoxha article are incorrectly formatted. Shorter quotes should be in-line (not using this template), while longer quotes should not have quotation marks.
Arsenikk
(talk)
18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't the best example actually. Take Pound (mass). Now the quotation at the end is long, more than four lines, and is formatted appropriately using <blockquote>. However in the middle, the quote is not long enough (i.e. it is two lines) and therefore it won't be blockquoted. Therefore this can be used appropriately for pull-quotes, and the nominators rationale is not correct. Now maybe there is a case for merging to cquote, but that is a different matter and some might favour the {{ "}} layout because it doesn't stand out as much as {{ cquote}} so it isn't quite as overpowering. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point here. The MOS states, as you say, that quotes less than four lines should not use block quotes—instead, they should use in-line quotes. In the latter case, this template cannot be used, since it creates a block quotation. If a
pull quote is wanted, we have {{
cquote}}. As far as I can see, all quotations in the Enver Hoxha article are incorrectly formatted. Shorter quotes should be in-line (not using this template), while longer quotes should not have quotation marks.
Arsenikk
(talk)
18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. The MOS clearly states that "[b]lock quotations are not enclosed in quotation marks". Also, the use of typographic quotation marks (instead of typewriter quotation marks) is not recommended by the MOS. Clearly, we cannot have a template who's very essence is to violate the MOS. By removing the quotation marks from the template, we create an unnecessary variation of {{ quote}} and {{ quotation}}. Arsenikk (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep But possibly discourage usage. There's a heck of a lot of pages using this. The existence of a template alone does not encourage use unless people are directed towards it from other pages (guidelines, how-to's, etc). If the point of this nomination is to discourage usage then we can do that without having to evaluate and fix the numerous other instances. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ "}}is probably the most mnemonic and shortest of the quotation templates, so keep, but perhaps merge with{{ cquote}}or something similar (at "). — Christoph Päper 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)- Redirect, not delete — " is a handy shortcut. I agree with above point — this template should be a redirect to another similar template. ( Epigraph perhaps?) — Jeremy 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The name is confusing and adding quotes is not that difficult. No reason to use a template and load servers for that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:LitNameTalk ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. A hardcoded instance of three project banners within a banner shell; better to place these banners on a talk page individually, as and when they are needed. Tagged for CSD#T3 but removed by author. PC78 ( talk) 09:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: just because it has no transclusions doesn't mean it is unused. I believe this template is substituted (e.g. on
Talk:Masiulis), thus saving the author having to add the same three project banners to multiple pages. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case then it should go in user space, I think (there is no documentation of it's usage, however). As an aside, I'm not sure pages like that should be marked as Stub-Class. PC78 ( talk) 10:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- keep This is template is used by substitution. After the substitution is done, you may easily change any class/importance/etc. Substitution saves lots of time: you have to remember proper name of the three templates, type them properly, remember to add banner template, etc. - Altenmann
>t
16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- .P.S. If someone knows the syntax to make the template substitution-only, they are welcome to help. - Altenmann >t 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per rationale of nominator. There are infinite possibilities of combining the various project banners, and I think we should not start withthat. Debresser ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, or if there is a particular editor who uses this frequently, userfy it for them. Debresser hits a key point: there are an incredible number of different combinations of project banners that might apply to a given article. If we start creating templates to combine these templates, there's no end in sight. I can understand a particular user wanting something like this for their own efficiency if they plan to tag a bunch of similar articles, but that can be accommodated is user space. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox political party}}. the see also section in inappropriate for infoboxes. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Since there is a huge number of this kind of templates for other countries, (see the Category:Political party infobox templates by country) a template for the Greek parties is not redundant. The see also section could be removed but other templates e.g. the French, the Russian, the Austrian, the Belgian, the German, the Dutch, the Scottish etc, have also this section, so it's not a problem (if it's a problem) of this particular template. Consequently, there is no reason to delete this template, otherwise a possible deletion of it falls into discrimination. - Sthenel ( talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant per nom, other stuff exists is never a good argument for a deletion discussion.-- 93.45.63.164 ( talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Don't see why not. It is important to have this. And by the way, other stuff exists actually IS a very good argument if in the other cases similar discussions and decisions have been made. Zisimos ( talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need two templates for the same thing.-- Ultimate Destiny ( talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Brazil was recently converted to use
{{Infobox political party}}without any difficulty. There is no need for a specialized template. I am happy to perform the conversion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) - Comment: I nominated this as a beacon. If this is deleted, and it should judging by the arguments above, the road for the rest opens. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt it. In that case it should be discussed as a general policy instead of requesting a deletion of this particular template. By the way, there are several general templates for other categories but they don't prevent templates for specific use from existing. More stuff doesn't mean redundant stuff. There are about 80 other templates like this, but this was selected to be used as a scapegoat. - Sthenel ( talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) - The fact that this one can be covered from the generic Infobox political party doesn't change whether other templates exist or not. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment if you check the template code, it's a simple straight pipe through of parameters to {{ infobox political party}}. The only difference is that the 'country' field is filled in. I see no reason why this couldn't be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep On the basis that all the other templates be nominated for deletion as well, otherwise the discussion is pointless.
El Greco(
talk)
22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it should be viewed as an "all or nothing" case. I would say around 50 percent of them could be trivially replaced with the generic template, since they have nothing which doesn't already appear in the generic
{{infobox political party}}. However, there are a some marginal cases, which do not have fields appearing in the generic political party template. This particular case happens to be one of the ones that could be trivially replaced. In fact, one could simply redirect this template to{{infobox political party}}and the only thing which would be missing is the three links at the bottom. These are specified with the "country" field. I am working to go through these templates to identify the ones which can be trivially replaced, ones which can use{{infobox political party}}as a backend, and ones for which it's not so clear that they could be merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it should be viewed as an "all or nothing" case. I would say around 50 percent of them could be trivially replaced with the generic template, since they have nothing which doesn't already appear in the generic
Keep we need the field to state the European affiliation.-- Nero the second ( talk) 13:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)- Have you looked at the template code? The
{{Infobox political party}}has the european parameter in it. There is literally nothing in this template, it's just a redirect to{{Infobox political party}}. This template could be simply redirected and nothing would be lost. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the template code? The
- Delete if the current fields can be kept as they are now.-- Nero the second ( talk) 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I expected that these who insist on the template's deletion would do the same for the rest of the redundant templates. On the contrary, they avoid to start a similar procedure for the rest of the templates and their arguments have been so far: "I don't think it should be viewed as an 'all or nothing' case" (should it be viewed as "everything but this"?), "This particular case happens to be one of the ones that could be trivially replaced" (why don't you do the same for the...ones?), "The fact that this one can be covered from the generic Infobox political party doesn't change whether other templates exist or not" (other templates exactly like this do exist and should be treated like this). This discussion should take place in order to follow a general strategy for these templates and a mass redirection for those which are needless, instead of attacking particularly "this one of the ones". So the best way is to talk generally about these templates here. - Sthenel ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with the more widely used template that this replicates. The general conversation referenced by Sthenel also shows consensus for replacing the country-specific templates with the general one. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can replace all the country infoboxes with the generic one using a bot. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
09:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We have been working on simplifying this task by replacing the backends with
{{infobox political party}}when possible. For most cases, it would be a simple substitution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We have been working on simplifying this task by replacing the backends with
- 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 speedy delete by Rich Farmbrough Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Indian Famine Codes ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The entire content of the template is a duplicate of Indian Famine Codes. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, although I'm a little concerned that the nomination of this the same day it was created is a bit WP:BITE-y. Per comments at User:Winston betts, this appears to be a test page, and the user just created his account a couple of days ago. Still, since it is here, it's clearly not an appropriate template and could be speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G2. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speedying its in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 15 October 2009 (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) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Conform to template ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphan; I can hardly figure out what this means. Just because articles are of a similar type doesn't mean they need to follow the same structure. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since it was created in February 2008. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Concerttourdates ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned; I don't see why concert tour dates are really needed at all, but I especially don't see the purpose for having a big two-lined cleanup template for when they don't. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. If a Wikiproject was using this to help clean up concert tour articles, I could maybe see keeping it, but there's no indication of that. It's just another overly specific article tag that no one is using, about a matter that could just as easily be brought up by posting to the articles' talk pages. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I now for a fact that it is being used once in a while. Just that it gets removed afterwards, because somebody is keeping track of concert tours, and tags articles and updates them. I don't know who this is. I can just say I have seen this template in active use. I agree that occasional use might not be enough reason to keep this template. I have no opinion on the deletion proposal. Just thought you should take this into account.
Debresser (
talk)
22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. In the absence of any users coming to defend it here, and given the excessive specificity of the tag, I'm going to stick with recommending deletion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (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 redirect to {{current}}
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Current section ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned; I see no reason to keep this when the correct syntax is simple: {{Current|section}}. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Not needed anymore. Garion96 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect to {{ Current}}. I agree that it is redundant and not used heavily -- only one article transclusion right now, although we should keep in mind that by its nature this template would typically only be a temporary presence on a page. However, this template has been around for several years, so an experienced user might add it from memory. With a redirect, they will get a result close to what they are attempting, instead of just getting a template redlink. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:CCPermissionNeeded ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I would like this template deprecated, since we will now be handling this through the WP:CP and WP:CSD systems it seems. Is a talk page notice still needed for this now?
Disclaimer of interests: I created this template. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and deletion requested by creator/sole editor. Could have been done as a speedy delete G7. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (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 subst and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Used in only one article ( Joe Biden), with no other purpose. — Markles 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Where else would it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nowhere. It would go nowhere else. Hence the reason to delete it.—
Markles
23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the purpose is to reduce the code size of the main article.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that a legitimate purpose for a template? Moving code used in a single article into a template?
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was legitimate, I just said I think that's why it was created. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that a legitimate purpose for a template? Moving code used in a single article into a template?
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the purpose is to reduce the code size of the main article.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. This is just a wrapper for other templates that can exist on the page directly, which is where they ought to be considering that the template has only one use. The Joe Biden article is a bit long, but not to the point of being unmanageable. The solution to the article being overlong is not to create unnecessary templates (which ultimately does nothing to change the size of the page presented to readers), but to trim material or spin off material into sub-articles. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Trim, subst and delete: per above and because the list of successions is overly long -- the 'Baby of the United States Senate' in particular should go, as its purely "unofficial". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with that – I tried getting rid of the 'Baby of the Senate' nonsense a while ago ('Baby of the House' is a real usage in the UK, but there is no U.S. equivalent), but the nav-succ-template fanatics kept putting it back in.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
02:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, BUT this discussion is not about the details of the template's content, only the necessity of its existence.— Markles 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with that – I tried getting rid of the 'Baby of the Senate' nonsense a while ago ('Baby of the House' is a real usage in the UK, but there is no U.S. equivalent), but the nav-succ-template fanatics kept putting it back in.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
02:58, 14 October 2009 (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 as redundant to {{Infobox political party}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox political party}} and has worse code. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with the generic template. Unnecessary fork of {{ Infobox political party}}, which is much more widely used (hundreds of articles instead of two) and has robust documentation instead of none. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (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 as unused and redundant to {{link}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Senses ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not a proper template and links to a very low profile website. Everything that was linked on Wikipedia with it are dead links and thus, the use has been removed from the articles. Created in 2006 and used on less than 50 articles about film directors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm would converting this to cover the Five senses count as an action? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- They've just archived a lot of stuff. That's why they all seemed to be dead links. If you change the www.sensesofcinema.com to archive.sensesofcinema.com you'll probably find most of it --
SteveCrook (
talk)
15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then perhaps there is usable content from the pages for articles, but I still can't see the use of a template to link to articles the content of which aren't used in the actual articles. A template for less than 50 articles doesn't seem useful to me. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (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 as unused and not appropriate use of a template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Koppel-Revelle-Gore ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template for including a single, unused, quote. "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution…" (the latter was checked both by a text search, and a link search for the ref) "…and has no likelihood of being used" (if somebody's interested in using the quote, they're more likely to simply insert it, than to search to see if a template has been set up for it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Using templates to transclude article text is discouraged, and this template is unused. -- RL0919 ( talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (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 merge to {{ Infobox Volleyball player}}. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Nearly redundant to {{ Infobox Volleyball player}}, any necessary fields (i.e., teammate) could be added to volleyball player, which would make this template redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious
Have you read the differences between beach volleyball and indoor volleyball? Have you visited the Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball? Thanks, this have to be a joke!Oscar987 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal is to merge the two templates. The two templates are mostly the same, with some minor differences. I would be happy to mock-up a merged version so you could see how the same template could be used for both cases. Yes, I know that there are differences between how the sports are played, but there are not so many differences between the content of the two templates. If you consider the fact that some athletes have played both, this would help solve the problem of which template to use. For example, see {{ infobox martial artist}}, which is used for martial artists who compete is several different forms of martial arts. Thanks for your input. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Update As a proof-of-concept, I merged the two templates in the
sandbox. It appears that both templates could use this common sandbox version, with no changes to the individual transclusions. A couple results are show on the
testcases page. I also changed the
{{tfd}}to a{{tfm}}to make it more clear that this is a merger proposal. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - Note See Oscar987's latest comments here. It appears most fears have been assuaged by the proof-of-concept demonstration. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and positive results of sandbox demonstration. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (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 withdrawn by nominator Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Algiz infobox ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Hardcoded sidebar infobox used on only two pages. Could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- so it could. But why should it? It is transcluded precisely because it is in two articles, not just one, and it is easier to maintain a single revision of this infobox than two clones. --
dab
(𒁳)
11:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. I believe there could be a solution where all of these are merged, into say {{ infobox rune}} or something, but for now I withdraw my nomination. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- so it could. But why should it? It is transcluded precisely because it is in two articles, not just one, and it is easier to maintain a single revision of this infobox than two clones. --
dab
(𒁳)
11:04, 8 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Template is a simple frontend for {{ infobox political party}}, which just hands off each field to the political party template backend. It could be very easily replaced by infobox political party. Only one transclusion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary (and recently created) fork. Replace with the widely used {{ infobox political party}}. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Template is unused and redundant to {{ infobox political party}}. All Venezuelan political parties use the infobox political party template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (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) 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Theosophy2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Nominate for deletion as identical to the more used and slightly more elegant {{ Theosophy series}}. Debresser ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and redundant to the other template. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (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 speedily deleted by author Happy-melon 16:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:LOCEinuse ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned and deprecated; the LOC is no longer active and {{ GOCEinuse}} has effectively replace this template. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (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 redirect to {{quote}}. Any exceptions can be handled on a case-by-case basis (i.e., switching to cquote or explicitly adding quotation marks).
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:" ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
According to the Manual of Style, block quotations should not be surrounded in quotation marks, which is exactly what this template does. A template that makes it easy to violate the MoS is Bad and Wrong. Hairy Dude ( talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. True, but: 1) {{ cquote}} does the same in a much bolder fashion, 2) if quotation marks are the only problem, why not delete them instead of the entire template (that would, as far as I can tell, be equivalent to redirecting the template to {{ quote}}). GregorB ( talk) 17:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. ( edit conflict) Lots of other templates like this exist, e.g. {{ cquote}}, and they have correct usage. MOS:QUOTE defines a block quotation as "more than four lines", and the first use of this template I checked, Enver Hoxha, is not more than for lines, so it is appropriate. There might be a few instances of misuse, but I doesn't require template deletion. The only thing I think needed doing was a note about usage in the documentation. And I've done this using the same wording as cquote has. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point here. The MOS states, as you say, that quotes less than four lines should not use block quotes—instead, they should use in-line quotes. In the latter case, this template cannot be used, since it creates a block quotation. If a
pull quote is wanted, we have {{
cquote}}. As far as I can see, all quotations in the Enver Hoxha article are incorrectly formatted. Shorter quotes should be in-line (not using this template), while longer quotes should not have quotation marks.
Arsenikk
(talk)
18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That wasn't the best example actually. Take Pound (mass). Now the quotation at the end is long, more than four lines, and is formatted appropriately using <blockquote>. However in the middle, the quote is not long enough (i.e. it is two lines) and therefore it won't be blockquoted. Therefore this can be used appropriately for pull-quotes, and the nominators rationale is not correct. Now maybe there is a case for merging to cquote, but that is a different matter and some might favour the {{ "}} layout because it doesn't stand out as much as {{ cquote}} so it isn't quite as overpowering. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point here. The MOS states, as you say, that quotes less than four lines should not use block quotes—instead, they should use in-line quotes. In the latter case, this template cannot be used, since it creates a block quotation. If a
pull quote is wanted, we have {{
cquote}}. As far as I can see, all quotations in the Enver Hoxha article are incorrectly formatted. Shorter quotes should be in-line (not using this template), while longer quotes should not have quotation marks.
Arsenikk
(talk)
18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. The MOS clearly states that "[b]lock quotations are not enclosed in quotation marks". Also, the use of typographic quotation marks (instead of typewriter quotation marks) is not recommended by the MOS. Clearly, we cannot have a template who's very essence is to violate the MOS. By removing the quotation marks from the template, we create an unnecessary variation of {{ quote}} and {{ quotation}}. Arsenikk (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep But possibly discourage usage. There's a heck of a lot of pages using this. The existence of a template alone does not encourage use unless people are directed towards it from other pages (guidelines, how-to's, etc). If the point of this nomination is to discourage usage then we can do that without having to evaluate and fix the numerous other instances. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ "}}is probably the most mnemonic and shortest of the quotation templates, so keep, but perhaps merge with{{ cquote}}or something similar (at "). — Christoph Päper 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)- Redirect, not delete — " is a handy shortcut. I agree with above point — this template should be a redirect to another similar template. ( Epigraph perhaps?) — Jeremy 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The name is confusing and adding quotes is not that difficult. No reason to use a template and load servers for that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:LitNameTalk ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. A hardcoded instance of three project banners within a banner shell; better to place these banners on a talk page individually, as and when they are needed. Tagged for CSD#T3 but removed by author. PC78 ( talk) 09:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: just because it has no transclusions doesn't mean it is unused. I believe this template is substituted (e.g. on
Talk:Masiulis), thus saving the author having to add the same three project banners to multiple pages. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case then it should go in user space, I think (there is no documentation of it's usage, however). As an aside, I'm not sure pages like that should be marked as Stub-Class. PC78 ( talk) 10:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- keep This is template is used by substitution. After the substitution is done, you may easily change any class/importance/etc. Substitution saves lots of time: you have to remember proper name of the three templates, type them properly, remember to add banner template, etc. - Altenmann
>t
16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- .P.S. If someone knows the syntax to make the template substitution-only, they are welcome to help. - Altenmann >t 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per rationale of nominator. There are infinite possibilities of combining the various project banners, and I think we should not start withthat. Debresser ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, or if there is a particular editor who uses this frequently, userfy it for them. Debresser hits a key point: there are an incredible number of different combinations of project banners that might apply to a given article. If we start creating templates to combine these templates, there's no end in sight. I can understand a particular user wanting something like this for their own efficiency if they plan to tag a bunch of similar articles, but that can be accommodated is user space. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox political party}}. the see also section in inappropriate for infoboxes. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Since there is a huge number of this kind of templates for other countries, (see the Category:Political party infobox templates by country) a template for the Greek parties is not redundant. The see also section could be removed but other templates e.g. the French, the Russian, the Austrian, the Belgian, the German, the Dutch, the Scottish etc, have also this section, so it's not a problem (if it's a problem) of this particular template. Consequently, there is no reason to delete this template, otherwise a possible deletion of it falls into discrimination. - Sthenel ( talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant per nom, other stuff exists is never a good argument for a deletion discussion.-- 93.45.63.164 ( talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Don't see why not. It is important to have this. And by the way, other stuff exists actually IS a very good argument if in the other cases similar discussions and decisions have been made. Zisimos ( talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need two templates for the same thing.-- Ultimate Destiny ( talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Brazil was recently converted to use
{{Infobox political party}}without any difficulty. There is no need for a specialized template. I am happy to perform the conversion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) - Comment: I nominated this as a beacon. If this is deleted, and it should judging by the arguments above, the road for the rest opens. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt it. In that case it should be discussed as a general policy instead of requesting a deletion of this particular template. By the way, there are several general templates for other categories but they don't prevent templates for specific use from existing. More stuff doesn't mean redundant stuff. There are about 80 other templates like this, but this was selected to be used as a scapegoat. - Sthenel ( talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR ( talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) - The fact that this one can be covered from the generic Infobox political party doesn't change whether other templates exist or not. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment if you check the template code, it's a simple straight pipe through of parameters to {{ infobox political party}}. The only difference is that the 'country' field is filled in. I see no reason why this couldn't be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep On the basis that all the other templates be nominated for deletion as well, otherwise the discussion is pointless.
El Greco(
talk)
22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it should be viewed as an "all or nothing" case. I would say around 50 percent of them could be trivially replaced with the generic template, since they have nothing which doesn't already appear in the generic
{{infobox political party}}. However, there are a some marginal cases, which do not have fields appearing in the generic political party template. This particular case happens to be one of the ones that could be trivially replaced. In fact, one could simply redirect this template to{{infobox political party}}and the only thing which would be missing is the three links at the bottom. These are specified with the "country" field. I am working to go through these templates to identify the ones which can be trivially replaced, ones which can use{{infobox political party}}as a backend, and ones for which it's not so clear that they could be merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it should be viewed as an "all or nothing" case. I would say around 50 percent of them could be trivially replaced with the generic template, since they have nothing which doesn't already appear in the generic
Keep we need the field to state the European affiliation.-- Nero the second ( talk) 13:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)- Have you looked at the template code? The
{{Infobox political party}}has the european parameter in it. There is literally nothing in this template, it's just a redirect to{{Infobox political party}}. This template could be simply redirected and nothing would be lost. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the template code? The
- Delete if the current fields can be kept as they are now.-- Nero the second ( talk) 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I expected that these who insist on the template's deletion would do the same for the rest of the redundant templates. On the contrary, they avoid to start a similar procedure for the rest of the templates and their arguments have been so far: "I don't think it should be viewed as an 'all or nothing' case" (should it be viewed as "everything but this"?), "This particular case happens to be one of the ones that could be trivially replaced" (why don't you do the same for the...ones?), "The fact that this one can be covered from the generic Infobox political party doesn't change whether other templates exist or not" (other templates exactly like this do exist and should be treated like this). This discussion should take place in order to follow a general strategy for these templates and a mass redirection for those which are needless, instead of attacking particularly "this one of the ones". So the best way is to talk generally about these templates here. - Sthenel ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with the more widely used template that this replicates. The general conversation referenced by Sthenel also shows consensus for replacing the country-specific templates with the general one. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can replace all the country infoboxes with the generic one using a bot. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
09:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We have been working on simplifying this task by replacing the backends with
{{infobox political party}}when possible. For most cases, it would be a simple substitution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We have been working on simplifying this task by replacing the backends with
- 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 speedy delete by Rich Farmbrough Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Indian Famine Codes ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The entire content of the template is a duplicate of Indian Famine Codes. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, although I'm a little concerned that the nomination of this the same day it was created is a bit WP:BITE-y. Per comments at User:Winston betts, this appears to be a test page, and the user just created his account a couple of days ago. Still, since it is here, it's clearly not an appropriate template and could be speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G2. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speedying its in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 15 October 2009 (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) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Conform to template ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphan; I can hardly figure out what this means. Just because articles are of a similar type doesn't mean they need to follow the same structure. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since it was created in February 2008. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Concerttourdates ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned; I don't see why concert tour dates are really needed at all, but I especially don't see the purpose for having a big two-lined cleanup template for when they don't. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. If a Wikiproject was using this to help clean up concert tour articles, I could maybe see keeping it, but there's no indication of that. It's just another overly specific article tag that no one is using, about a matter that could just as easily be brought up by posting to the articles' talk pages. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I now for a fact that it is being used once in a while. Just that it gets removed afterwards, because somebody is keeping track of concert tours, and tags articles and updates them. I don't know who this is. I can just say I have seen this template in active use. I agree that occasional use might not be enough reason to keep this template. I have no opinion on the deletion proposal. Just thought you should take this into account.
Debresser (
talk)
22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. In the absence of any users coming to defend it here, and given the excessive specificity of the tag, I'm going to stick with recommending deletion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (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 redirect to {{current}}
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Current section ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned; I see no reason to keep this when the correct syntax is simple: {{Current|section}}. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Not needed anymore. Garion96 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect to {{ Current}}. I agree that it is redundant and not used heavily -- only one article transclusion right now, although we should keep in mind that by its nature this template would typically only be a temporary presence on a page. However, this template has been around for several years, so an experienced user might add it from memory. With a redirect, they will get a result close to what they are attempting, instead of just getting a template redlink. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:CCPermissionNeeded ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I would like this template deprecated, since we will now be handling this through the WP:CP and WP:CSD systems it seems. Is a talk page notice still needed for this now?
Disclaimer of interests: I created this template. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and deletion requested by creator/sole editor. Could have been done as a speedy delete G7. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (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 subst and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Used in only one article ( Joe Biden), with no other purpose. — Markles 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Where else would it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nowhere. It would go nowhere else. Hence the reason to delete it.—
Markles
23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the purpose is to reduce the code size of the main article.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that a legitimate purpose for a template? Moving code used in a single article into a template?
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was legitimate, I just said I think that's why it was created. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that a legitimate purpose for a template? Moving code used in a single article into a template?
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the purpose is to reduce the code size of the main article.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. This is just a wrapper for other templates that can exist on the page directly, which is where they ought to be considering that the template has only one use. The Joe Biden article is a bit long, but not to the point of being unmanageable. The solution to the article being overlong is not to create unnecessary templates (which ultimately does nothing to change the size of the page presented to readers), but to trim material or spin off material into sub-articles. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Trim, subst and delete: per above and because the list of successions is overly long -- the 'Baby of the United States Senate' in particular should go, as its purely "unofficial". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with that – I tried getting rid of the 'Baby of the Senate' nonsense a while ago ('Baby of the House' is a real usage in the UK, but there is no U.S. equivalent), but the nav-succ-template fanatics kept putting it back in.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
02:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, BUT this discussion is not about the details of the template's content, only the necessity of its existence.— Markles 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with that – I tried getting rid of the 'Baby of the Senate' nonsense a while ago ('Baby of the House' is a real usage in the UK, but there is no U.S. equivalent), but the nav-succ-template fanatics kept putting it back in.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
02:58, 14 October 2009 (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 as redundant to {{Infobox political party}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox political party}} and has worse code. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with the generic template. Unnecessary fork of {{ Infobox political party}}, which is much more widely used (hundreds of articles instead of two) and has robust documentation instead of none. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (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 as unused and redundant to {{link}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Senses ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not a proper template and links to a very low profile website. Everything that was linked on Wikipedia with it are dead links and thus, the use has been removed from the articles. Created in 2006 and used on less than 50 articles about film directors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm would converting this to cover the Five senses count as an action? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- They've just archived a lot of stuff. That's why they all seemed to be dead links. If you change the www.sensesofcinema.com to archive.sensesofcinema.com you'll probably find most of it --
SteveCrook (
talk)
15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then perhaps there is usable content from the pages for articles, but I still can't see the use of a template to link to articles the content of which aren't used in the actual articles. A template for less than 50 articles doesn't seem useful to me. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (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 as unused and not appropriate use of a template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Koppel-Revelle-Gore ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template for including a single, unused, quote. "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution…" (the latter was checked both by a text search, and a link search for the ref) "…and has no likelihood of being used" (if somebody's interested in using the quote, they're more likely to simply insert it, than to search to see if a template has been set up for it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Using templates to transclude article text is discouraged, and this template is unused. -- RL0919 ( talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (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 merge to {{ Infobox Volleyball player}}. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Nearly redundant to {{ Infobox Volleyball player}}, any necessary fields (i.e., teammate) could be added to volleyball player, which would make this template redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious
Have you read the differences between beach volleyball and indoor volleyball? Have you visited the Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball? Thanks, this have to be a joke!Oscar987 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal is to merge the two templates. The two templates are mostly the same, with some minor differences. I would be happy to mock-up a merged version so you could see how the same template could be used for both cases. Yes, I know that there are differences between how the sports are played, but there are not so many differences between the content of the two templates. If you consider the fact that some athletes have played both, this would help solve the problem of which template to use. For example, see {{ infobox martial artist}}, which is used for martial artists who compete is several different forms of martial arts. Thanks for your input. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Update As a proof-of-concept, I merged the two templates in the
sandbox. It appears that both templates could use this common sandbox version, with no changes to the individual transclusions. A couple results are show on the
testcases page. I also changed the
{{tfd}}to a{{tfm}}to make it more clear that this is a merger proposal. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - Note See Oscar987's latest comments here. It appears most fears have been assuaged by the proof-of-concept demonstration. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and positive results of sandbox demonstration. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (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 withdrawn by nominator Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Algiz infobox ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Hardcoded sidebar infobox used on only two pages. Could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- so it could. But why should it? It is transcluded precisely because it is in two articles, not just one, and it is easier to maintain a single revision of this infobox than two clones. --
dab
(𒁳)
11:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. I believe there could be a solution where all of these are merged, into say {{ infobox rune}} or something, but for now I withdraw my nomination. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- so it could. But why should it? It is transcluded precisely because it is in two articles, not just one, and it is easier to maintain a single revision of this infobox than two clones. --
dab
(𒁳)
11:04, 8 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Template is a simple frontend for {{ infobox political party}}, which just hands off each field to the political party template backend. It could be very easily replaced by infobox political party. Only one transclusion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary (and recently created) fork. Replace with the widely used {{ infobox political party}}. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Template is unused and redundant to {{ infobox political party}}. All Venezuelan political parties use the infobox political party template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (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.