Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7

Template:Jewelpet

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Historically, navboxes with 4-5 articles are marginal at TFD: some have been kept in the past, others deleted. The discussion consensus is clearly keep in this case. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only four links inside the template. deerstop. 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Four links (discounting those in the header of the navbox) is enough to justify a navbox. This template is used in just as many articles and I see no better alternative for easy navigation. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 29 July 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) 16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a possibility of more articles being created, such as for the second series' episodes and a list of manga volumes as well as a separate media section. Add that to the existing 5 articles and there should be plenty enough for a navbox. I'll note that the base article is in serious need of cleanup and it is completely disorganized and without a focus. —Farix (t | c) 16:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the {{hide}} links if possible without making a mess (i.e. without subst'ing the navbox). --N Y Kevin @197, i.e. 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Airplaneman. --Tadija^speaks 15:22, 12 August 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:Future

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 Move without redirect to Template:WP Future. Having looked at several of the current transclusions, it is clear that most of them are attempting to use the old version of {{Future}}, so I will not be updating any of the transclusions to use the new name. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is totally different from the version once used for "future event" articles, however it is redundant to {{proposed}} with wording that creatively escapes CSD T3. It seems intended for project space but no project spaces transclude it, 4 months after its creation. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant or at least move without redirect. People still use this template on main space for future events. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect I created this for essays such as User:WereSpielChequers/AI accounts without being aware of previous debates about templates for anticipated future events in mainspace. I would think that a move to something like template:WP Future combined with a tweak to clarify this is about policy proposals would prevent it being used in mainspace. It isn't redundant to proposed because this is for contingency plans that won't be proposed unless and until the relevant contingency arises. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect, but keep. The template is potentially useful, but the name is misleading given that there was a previous, longstanding {{Future}} template with a very different purpose. It would be better left a redlink rather than creating a lot of confusing links. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy without redirect. Essays don't need warnings such as these, provided they are worded correctly. Honestly I feel that future possibilities that we might need to eventually think about don't belong in project space, but in userspace. That's just my opinion however. --N Y Kevin @195, i.e. 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect it may be useful as per WereSpielChequers, but if not to be used in mainspace this needs to be made clear because it's being used on new articles. See: Canon EOS 60D. --Kudpung (talk) 13:24, 14 August 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:Top Gear Series 01

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. Unused, redlink-filled navbox. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top Gear Series 01 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, and unlikely to ever be used, since individual episode articles should never appear. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not needed, and probably never will be. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned with little to no future usage potential. Airplaneman ✈ 19:37, 10 August 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:Blp talk header

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blp talk header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary duplicate of {{talk header}} that could be easily be turned into a |blp=yes argument on the main template. elektrik SHOOS 20:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) (originally unsigned)[reply]

That would make sense. Can someone create such a code so that it replicates the way that {{Blp talk header}} is presented? Currently the template is necessary as the talkheader doesn't list appropriate help pages or polices for blp issues - the only way to do that is to have an extra box which both clutters the talkpage and separates the policy links into two places. Keep this template until an appropriate |blp=yes code is created, and then merge. SilkTork *^YES! 09:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to see the template in use on a talkpage - Talk:Freak Out!. SilkTork *^YES! 09:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merging. BLP talk pages should already transclude the {{BLP}} template which includes all relevant links. I don't see what this template adds. PC78 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth being aware of what it does - it puts the BLP policy into the list of relevant policies on the talkheader, and moves the relevant talkpage advice and links into the talkheader, saving clutter. The blp editing notice already appears on the article page. 16:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "save clutter", on the contrary it adds clutter by duplicating information already present in the {{BLP}} template. {{BLP}} should appear on all talk pages of blp articles and currently has 484,682 transclusions, compared to 147,601 transclusions for {{Talk header}} which per it's own documentation should only be used for "particularly active talk pages". I'm well aware of what it does, I just don't see any benefit in adding these links to a general use template when there is already a specific and more widely used talk page template. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that when there is a talkheader on a page then it can take over the role of the BLP template. A template which can absorb several templates and present the same information in a smaller space does indeed reduce clutter. The proposition by the nominator makes sense - that we should include a blp flag in talkheader in order to increase that template's functionality, and increase choice for editors. Not having a blp flag in talkheader reduces choice for editors who then have the blp template or nothing, and so busy blp talkpages will use both a talkheader and a blp template when one would suffice. That would be like removing the archive function from talkheader because we already have an archive template that is widely used. The archive template is fine on its own when there is no talkheader - but when talkheader is present, then it can take over the archive template's function. Same with the blp option. I would do the blp flag on talkheader if I could, but I am not a code writer. SilkTork *^YES! 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but IMHO this makes a poor substitute for the wording of {{BLP}}. As it stands, {{Blp talk header}} doesn't "present the same information" but rather waters it down and gives it less prominence, and I think this does BLP policy a disservice; it's important enough to have it's own box. While I'm sympathetic to the cause of reducing talk page template clutter, this is one area that need not and should not be pruned. PC78 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merging per per PC78. It makes the blp warning less prominent than with using {{blp}} plus it encourages unneeded plastering of discussion pages with {{talkheader}}. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging per PC78 and Garion96. This overly complicates things. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 10 August 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.