Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16

[edit]

Template:National Intercollegiate Women's Fencing Association

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Intercollegiate Women's Fencing Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a navbox that appears at the bottom of each of the universities listed on it. While I have nothing against women's fencing, it doesn't seem to me to merit being a navbox on each school's page. If we were to list the associations for every sport or activity at each school, the number of navboxes would be ridiculous. Also, I don't think that this navbox is really adding any useful information to the article (is it really necessary to be able to navigate between schools based on their fencing league by using a navbox?). Its information is more suited as a category than a navbox. CapitalR (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete it would be too unwieldy to have templates for every single collegiate sport association. Astuishin (talk) 06:33, 19 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:Deleted route IA

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deleted route IA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Functions better served by {{Infobox road}} and {{Infobox road small}}. —Fredddie™ 23:04, 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:Web color names for shades of green

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web color names for shades of green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant of {{Web colors}} and {{Shades of green}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 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:Shades of gray

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

The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{Shades of grey}}. A template that presets certain parameters and passes them through to another template can be a valid configuration, but the discussion below indicates that this is not seen as helpful in this particular case. RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shades of gray (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deliberately redundant of {{Shades of grey}}. Simply make {{Shades of grey|us}} to display American English spellings. Looking at that template's source (it has no documentation), this option is already present. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect won't work as it won't pass through additional parameters. I've fixed the spelling of greys that didn't switch to variant spellings when used with this template. PaleAqua (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the technical aspect means that this is an acceptable use of the sub-classing feature, do we really need to go enforcing ENGVAR in navbox templates? Do people really get so offended by page footers using slightly different dialects? I rather think this sets an awkward precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 4 May 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:Entourage cameo

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Entourage cameo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Svick (talk) 13:26, 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:Entourage guest

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Entourage guest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, Entourage episodes don't have their own articles. Svick (talk) 13:23, 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:Light EV Competitors

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Light EV Competitors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The rationale given on the talk page explains it well. A template is not an appropriate way to hold this information; it's arbitrary, less presentable than well-written prose, and clunky. Recommended action: subst and delete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, although frankly I wouldn't even subst it. Whether these vehicles are "competitors" of each other is questionable, especially since they don't all compete in the same markets. It's just an entirely arbitrary partial snapshot of category:Battery electric vehicles --DeLarge (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but it needs to be fixed. As it is now the template is comparing oranges with apples, but it can be fixed if clear rules for what it should contain are set. The list should include only highway capable vehicles (excluded those with a short all-electric range and with limited maximum speed) that are already in the mass market (such as the i MiEV) or in preproduction (such as the Nissan Leaf). Concept cars and all other non-highway (such as neighborhood electric vehicles should be excluded. As a new wave of BEVs is entering the market this template is very handy to avoid repeating the same text in all related articles.---Mariordo (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The purpose of a navigation template like this is to allow simple inclusion of a list of related articles in each of a set. Without a template such as this the addition of a new competitor requires the editing of each article in the set. One non-template solution might be to create a "List of" such articles to be included as **See also**, but that would be less direct than the present method, which functions well, since the current article viewed is listed with distinct typography and without a link, while articles already viewed are highlighted by the user's browser. As far as what it should contain I think the comments by Mariodor are appropriate. Leonard G. (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate format for lists of related articles is a navbox. No other part of the project uses transcluded lists in the format. I wouldn't be opposed to reformatting as a navbox, but there is absolutely no reason to cook up some new use of the templating system for this very common instance of a list of related pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Point me to a good example of this and I can make the changes. - 67.174.211.196 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As in, a good example of a navbox? I've already reformatted this template as a navbox and added it to the template sandbox. I wouldn't be opposed to that implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I afraid I don’t think that answers my own concerns at all.
    Look at some of the articles linked to in the template: the i MiEV is a four-seat city car sold in Japan and (soon) the United Kingdom. The Citroën Berlingo électrique is a van-based vehicle sold in the UK, Norway, and Denmark, and possibly France. The Piaggio Porter is a microvan sold in Italy. The Subaru Stella (another city car) will be sold in Europe from later this year, according to one Spanish language source, even though elsewhere in the article it says the car’s future production is in doubt. The Oka NEV ZEV is sold in the US. The three-seat DOK-ING XD would be made and sold in Croatia (or maybe China), except it only exists as a prototype and they haven't even found an investor to allow mass manufacture yet.
    A British reader (for example) on the lookout for the Berlingo probably isn’t interested in an i MiEV at all, might possibly be interested in a Piaggio except he can’t buy it, and definitely wouldn’t be interested in the other neighbourhood EVs which he also can’t buy anyway. Is there any reader, in any country, who'd be well served by this navbox? Templating these vehicles as "competitors" seems to me to be a lot of original research and in many cases, flat out wrong. --DeLarge (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced competitors list --Typ932 T·C 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better served as a category in most cases. If there is a good home for the actual list, then substitute it there and delete the template. No need to wedge this entire list into every single article listed on the list. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Plastikspork. Airplaneman ✈ 02:42, 25 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:Demo template

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demo template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User intention to delete. Appears to be no longer active. Haruth (talk) 10:48, 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:Ʒ

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed new system for IPA markup which hasn't gone anywhere since its proposal four years ago. Unused. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 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:2008 Champions league twenty20 teams

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Champions league twenty20 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The 2008 Champions League Twenty20 never took place due to the Mumbai bombings so template seems a little unnecessary Jevansen (talk) 07:10, 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:User mrsteak613/SYRChiefs Retired

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User mrsteak613/SYRChiefs Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User Louisiana Tech Lady Techsters Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User Louisiana Tech Bulldogs Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User Washington Huskies Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User Syracuse Orange Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates of limited use which could be replaced by a simple wikitable listing the retired players. If this sort of thing is desired, then why not use a unified "retired number template" like MLBBioRet? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:07, 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:Infobox interchange

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Fastily Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, most likely redundant to one of the roads templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:48, 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:Infobox amateur radio club

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox amateur radio club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, most likely redundant to something else, or it would be in use? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 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:Infobox U.S. state test

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Graeme Bartlett. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old orphaned test template, which is redundant to {{Infobox U.S. state}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just an experiment.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:58, 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:Infobox U.S. sovereign state

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. sovereign state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to {{Infobox U.S. state}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, delete away. It was intended for historical Hawaii. — Nicholas (reply) @ 13:34, 17 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:New Zealand urban district

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand urban district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reason #2 - unused template redundant to Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs. XLerate (talk) 01:55, 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:Primera División de México 2009−10 Labeled Map

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus. It is common for single-use templates to be substituted and then deleted, but a there is a concern that in this instance that would put too much code into the article. No policy is at stake and the discussion does not clearly favor one side or the other, plus the length of time this has already been listed suggests that relisting would not be helpful. RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primera División de México 2009−10 Labeled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only used on a single page, pretty much making it useless. The map/information can be added within the relevant article. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a large amount of code to dump into a single article. Splitting diagrams and the like out when they're too long to belong in the article prose is commonplace, not only only on articles for things like chemical elements but also in the very relevant example of {{MLS map}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The labels are extremely hard to read given the background image. Other than that, I would say that it is borderline as far as substituting, in terms of complexity. It would be nice if there were a more concise way to do a multilabel {{location map}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The MLS map example is an interesting one, since it is being used in more than one article, which makes for a good use of a template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete sounds like the best option here. Airplaneman ✈ 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I boldly replaced it with this version, which I believe is much more readable. Someone can revert me if they disagree. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). It keeps 3500+ bytes of code out of the article, which is big as it is. Additionally, the relief map was not the original map put in place. Someone who edits the map pictures swapped it out. Change the map image and it becomes easier to read. Which is what I did. Digirami (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's only 3500+ bytes in the original version, due to listing every single club, rather than just the home cities. this edit only "saved" 1500 bytes, which is not that much. It's not clear why one has to label the teams on the map when the there is a table with the clubs listed by team and city right next to it. In addition, the labels are still overlapping, making them hard to read. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's standard practice for the map labels to be the club names. Check any league around the world and you'll see. Digirami (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, other stuff is great, but it still doesn't solve the hard to read problem. While were at it, we might as well move the entire section into the template, since they are attached. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was agreed upon by consensus in the WP:Footy related discussion in a talkpage to include a map with the locations of teams, with the labels being the teams' names. Any attempt should be made to make it readable, but thats done by modifying the label location. Digirami (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a link to that discussion? The map in 2009–10 Argentine Primera División season is even worse. If you try to view it on at any reasonable width, the map covers up the table on the left. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here (he first two discussions) and here. Those are the probably the most relevant discussions. I'm sure there might be other, but I can't find them at the moment. One thing you will note that the map is part of the original proposal and was never considered for removal. Digirami (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will have a look. Specifically, I am looking for the discussions that established that (1) the map should be a template that is not in the article directly, (2) the map must have the team names and not the city names, (3) the map must placed next to the table of teams (which is causing the overlap issue). There is a reason why {{Location map many}} has a limit on the number of markers. A more readable version would be to just number each point, then have the label numbers in the table on the left as a legend. Right now, in my opinion, there is far too much overlapping of text and the map could be significantly simplified. Splitting it into two maps was a good idea, but the implementation could use some help, due to the overlap issue. I would help out but it's not clear that my help would be welcomed. Perhaps I will try again later. I still believe there is no need to have a separate template for the map. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:02, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_16&oldid=1078564208"