Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

Template:Eastern Michigan bowl games

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. Tim Song (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Michigan bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not currently used. No articles exist for any of the applicable seasons or individual bowl games, and there is no need for this template on the general article about the team. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the template's creator. I made these templates with the hope the red links would push other editors to expand the articles. The template should at least be on the team football/athletics page. However, it is clearly not serving the purpose and I would be fine with a deletion. Thanks. Bcspro (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Active Rock Radio Stations in Ohio

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 Album Oriented and Alternative Rock templates, No consensus on Active, Class and Rock. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Active Rock Radio Stations in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Album Oriented Rock Radio Stations in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alternative Rock Radio Stations in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rock Radio Stations in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary templates. User who created them was a sockpuppet. Requesting that the templates be deleted. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't explain why it is unnecessary. Is it because there are essentially only five links? --Jameboy (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - There is a template that encompasses all rock stations already in exsistance. Having one that allows for "Active Rock" or "Album-Oriented Rock" is just simply breaking things down into silly groups. Also, the user was deciding what station fell under what format. This wasn't based on any source, but the user's own original research. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the existing template these were split from? Care to provide some more context on how these came to be? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - covered by List of radio stations in Ohio. Airplaneman ✈ 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Templates and navbox lists have different uses. The existence of a list does not obviate the need for a navbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Active Rock template, Classic Rock template and Rock template Most U.S. states have similar templates: Active Rock templates, Classic Rock templates, Modern Rock templates. See also Template:RadioFormats and Template:RadioFormats Rock-- Active, Classic and Modern appear to be the agreed upon categories. Delete other templates above. MisterE2123Five (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Eurocom

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) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template (created by a now banned user) is evidently based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy, as we are unable to import text unless it is compatibly licensed, and that includes allowing modification. Authorizing reproduction is insufficient. It is only used in one article, which is currently blanked pending rewrite. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; this doesn't appear to be worded for citation, but for general attribution of material lifted wholesale from source. I see you're in the process of ridding us of the last transclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Disaster

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) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not much of a template. Seems rather useless. I very much doubt it's ever being used. meco (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was an aborted attempt at a wizard-style process. This is unlikely to see use now that there's a proper article wizard in common use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Spooks episode

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) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Spooks episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I feel the template is long redundant; if you look at the template history, it wasn't updated in 2 years. Also, the template has less parameters than the standard Template:Infobox television episode. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under T3 as "a hard-coded duplicate of an existing template", namely {{infobox television episode}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Infobox television episode}}. There are only 4 main space and 1 user space transclusions of this template, and all of those can be easily moved over. In fact, many of those episodes are probably aren't notable on their own. —Farix (t | c) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I decided to be bold and redirect the three main space articles to the episode list since they showed no notability and were just plot summaries. That leaves only the user space transclusion. —Farix (t | c) 23:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hardcoded instance of another template. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TransLink (SEQ) bus services

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 there are no objections here or in the linked discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TransLink (SEQ) bus services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See here. Gerry (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad

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 a compromise has been reached Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created as a non-standard means of maintaining a soccer team roster that appears in the body of two related articles, Vancouver Whitecaps FC and 2010 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season. The use of a template in this manner needlessly complicates the article, as well as introducing non-standard material (i.e. the "v-d-e" display) into the article body. The editor who instituted this format has repeatedly reverted the template in despite opposition, insisting that "Wikipedia is not about consensus." Wider input is requested as to the suitability of this template. Ckatz^chat _spy 06:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is a standard method top avoid error when information is located in more than one location. The fact that the "v-d-e" is displayed as part of another template shows that it is standard. Its appearance can also be changed. Please see discussion, or lack of it, on talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Author has not offered any reason why using a template is more complicated and has not discussed the change and has simply resorted to replacing and threating using WP:3RR. He has not attempted to achieve Wikipedia:Consensus despite his appeal to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, I wasn't the one who initially objected to the template; that was JonBroxton, who has a long history (and tens of thousands of edits) in soccer articles. He was firmly opposed to your proposal half a day before I came across it. You have repeatedly reverted in your version, despite requests to simply wait until consensus is reached on the talk page. You have also claimed that consensus is not relevant, and have also tried to remove both the TfD notice and this discussion section. I've brought it here because you appear unwilling to discuss the matter in a reasonable manner; I cannot think of any method more fair than seeking input from a group of neutral individuals. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)comment stricken by Ckatz - TfD page not the place for this aspect of the discussion. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He objected at 12:00 Pacific time and has not had the chance to see the changes. You brought this here before you attempted to reach consensus yourself by placing the template up for deletion before others have a chance to see it. You are not acting in a reasonable manner, nor are you willing to discuss it in a reasonable manner. You removed the templates from being displayed so no one could see what they looked like in their intended place. That's unreasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a general point, I would note that many (most?) articles on football clubs do not use templates for the squad in the manner detailed above. See Melbourne Victory FC and Melbourne Victory season 2009–10. Manchester United F.C. and 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season do it differently again. I would ask a more general question, is the information required in both articles? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most European clubs keep the information in both locations. They use different formats. And one point of clarification, the information would be kept in three locations: the team page, the current season page, and the footer template. The advantage of keeping the player information on the season page--not in a template linked to it--is that there is edit history on that page that would stay with the season article. With that stated, the history with this club is that many anonymous editors make changes to the roster, quite often incorrectly, and they don't update the footer. I suspect that keeping it in three places will cause a great deal more synchronization issues. I'm one of the primary editors of the article and I'm trying to reduce my workload. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates should not used to keep information in articles synchronised unless there's a pressing reason to do so; saving five seconds copy-pasting a table between two pages is not one of those cases. Tens of thousands of club articles manage without having their squad lists held on a template; there's no reason this one has to be different. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is over-stating the case. I have given my reason. If this club were to follow the example of the European clubs, there would be two different formats. The one currently used in the template would be on the article page and {{fb si header |age=y}} (or some other method) on the season page. But since Chris is offering to help maintain the roster between the two pages, I suppose it would be OK to remove the template, but only on the grounds that others are willing to assist in maintaining the synchronization of the roster in all three locations. Without that assurance, it makes perfect sense to keep the edits limited to the two template locations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say, I agree with Ckatz and Chris Cunningham. While I understand the need to have the information on both pages the same, I don't think having it in a template is a necessary step. It takes less than 5 seconds to Ctrl-C Ctrl-V the text into the right place. Using the the template instead is non-standard for pretty much every football club article on the website, it's aesthetically clunky, and potentially makes it more difficult for less experienced users to work on the squad easily, especially those without the confidence or knowledge of how to edit templates. I've already made a promise to ensure that the squad lists on both pages are identical - whenever I make a change to one of them I will change the other one too. I think it's unneccesary. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only other regular editor of the roster has stated that he thinks it's unnecessary, I have removed it from the two locations where it was placed and I have restored the previous forms, with a comment on the correct form for season play on the other page. I have also placed a speed on the template. It is not required so it should be deleted. The TFD is no longer required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox recent cricketer

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 all. Tim Song (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox recent cricketer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Old Cricketer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox historic cricketer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Deprecated template, which has been replaced by {{Infobox cricketer biography}}. All transclusions have been deleted, so it appears it can be safely deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have converted the backends of Infobox historic cricketer and Infobox cricketer to allow them to be converted via substitution, and added a Bot request, so those will hopefully be orphaned soon as well. As such, I have joined them to this discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joined one more, {{Cricketer Infobox}}, which is also now orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good move. I suggest that, when all the deletions are finally done, the one remaining template be moved to {{Infobox cricketer}} as the best and most succinct name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since this template is used to describe umpires' careers too, I suggest that {{Infobox cricket biography}} be used as the main title. – Pee Jay 00:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and deprecated by the applicable WikiProject - WP:CRICKET. There are four other templates deprecated by WP:CRICKET - {{Infobox historic cricketer}}, {{Cricketer Infobox}}, {{Infobox cricketer}} and {{Infobox Old Cricketer}} which all do the same thing and eventually need to be migrated to {{Infobox cricketer biography}}. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great. I will join the others once they have been orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool. And make it use {{Infobox}}, please? Onwards and upwards… Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, untangling the massive template code in the main template would be next on my list, but that is going to take some time. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, please if you are planning on making changes to the template discuss the matter with WP:CRICKET rather than impose it by diktat. They are the group that actually use the template and if you consult with them you may get a better (and less drama-filled) result than just pushing change through. I hark back to the discussion on {{Infobox Australian place}} that may have been a lot more productive if editors proposing change had taken the time to discuss their concerns with the editors who used the template rather than using process to push through their desired outcome. My heart sunk a little when I saw editors here taking an interest in {{Infobox cricketer biography}} given my previous experience here. I hope this time things are not quite so confrontational. Please. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"My heart sunk a little when I saw editors here taking an interest" is "not quite so confrontational"? Remarkable. Here's a hint. This page is "Templates for discussion". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mattinbgn, but what did I do wrong with regard to {{Infobox Australian place}}? I am one of the editors who fixes bugs in that template? I am assuming you must be talking about this discussion, in which I was never involved. You must have me confused with someone else. I don't see the connection, given that this is a discussion about four deprecated templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a definite win, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – PeeJay 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to change my !vote. {{Infobox historic cricketer}} and {{Infobox cricketer}} are both still widely used and they should not even be nominated until they are orphaned. My !vote is now Delete {{Infobox recent cricketer}} and {{Infobox Old Cricketer}} but keep {{Infobox historic cricketer}} and {{Infobox cricketer}} until they are orphaned. – PeeJay 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is safe to assume that they would not be deleted if they are still in use. All four are deprecated, and I am assuming the other two will be orphaned soon. I have put in bot requests to complete this task. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, my concerns are null. Delete all. – Pee Jay 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.