Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Song from a Movie

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 no suitable merge target has been created Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Song from a Movie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable award. It wasn't even given out for almost a decade. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content could (should?) be rolled into a meta-template with a larger scope if one exists. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blaxthos. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no realistic merge target for this. {{MTV Movie Awards}}} exists, but it does not link to individual winners. A few of the (presumably) more prominent awards have their own navboxes, while the rest of the awards just have list articles without a corresponding navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 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:George Strait 2010s singles

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) 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:George Strait 2010s singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one song so far. Most country music artists release only three or four singles a year at the most, so it would take a while for this navbox to get populated enough. Until he has enough songs for a 2010s template, the 2000s template can be amended to include any 2010s releases as has been done at Template:Reba McEntire 2000s-2010s singles. (Note that Strait has so many singles that they don't all fit on one template, so division by decade is necessary.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; no objection to recreation if a significant number of singles surface later. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:50, 25 February 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:Napoleon Outlawz

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 Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Napoleon Outlawz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are only three links in this unneeded template. Karppinen (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too few links and only used in 2 articles. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, template is unnecessary. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:47, 25 February 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:Denaun Porter

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) 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denaun Porter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unuseful template that contains only three links related directly to the subject. Karppinen (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only three links actually about this specific person, and two of those are discographies that should probably be merged into the main article. Most of the rest are for the group D12, which has its own template. --RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 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:Sourcefire

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) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Huge template full of redlinks to non-notable persons and nonexistent articles. With only three or four possible articles, there is no need to have such a complex and large template. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to justify a navbox; company and product articles are already well-linked to one another. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator, it has little potential to fill all those redlinks. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 24 February 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.

UCFD templates

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) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfd-user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cfm-user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cfr-user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cfr-user-speedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:UCFD has been merged into WP:CFD for a while now, and these templates are no longer used or needed. Note that each is a redirect to a subpage under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Template, but due to the limitations of TFD templates the links have to be to template namespace. So to clarify I'm proposing deletion of the templates themselves, not just these redirects. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not needed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer needed. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 22#Template:Ucfd top. --RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 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:MyTitle

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonsense, unused. Uses a parser function called #thevaletman, that doesn't exist. The Evil IP address (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was changed just a week ago by an IP. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't work either if we reverted it to the creator's version. #WETitle is a non-existing parser function as well. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this template is used over at Wikieducator, and was copied here. I'm pretty sure the code that's used there works here as well, so if we decide we need such a shortcut for {{DISPLAYTITLE}} I guess the code could be copied here. The point of the template is shortening a subpage title, so that for example User:Jafeluv/Sandbox would display just "Sandbox" as the title, and it could be used as a shortcut to the magic word as well. Jafeluv (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purpose is redundant with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, and it doesn't work. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 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.

MTR station lists

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 after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tsuen Wan Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tung Chung Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:West Rail Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:East Rail Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ma On Shan Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ngong Ping 360 stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:North-south Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:East-west Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Island Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tseung Kwan O Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kwun Tong Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Airport Express stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Disneyland Resort Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MTR Light Rail stops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst/delete - a series of single-use templates, except for the Light Rail, which is used in two articles, and probably should be single-use. Not sure if I've tagged them all, so don't be surprised to see the list grow slightly. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all of them now. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Single-use tables don't need to be in template space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 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:학교 정보

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. RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:학교 정보 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does it have any use? Single use Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simple text is not an appropriate use of a template. (2) This is the English Wikipedia, why should "school information" be written in Korean? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonfuntional/useless. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Doc Quintana (talk) 03:11, 3 March 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:Tőketerebes (Trebišov) District

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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tőketerebes (Trebišov) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicity with Template:Trebišov District, same case as Galanta District Yopie (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier precedents. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{Trebišov District}}, which navigates by the actual names of the articles. If names in alternative languages are helpful for navigation, add them to the main template instead of creating a duplicate. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Hungarian names are still considered relevant, the alternative Hugarian names may be added to the already existent template (Iaaasi (talk) 06:17, 2 March 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:Dunaszerdahely (Dunajská Streda) District

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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dunaszerdahely (Dunajská Streda) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicity with Template:Dunajská Streda District, same case as http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_4 Yopie (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier precedents. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the template that navigates by the actual article names. Also not fully checked, since the Hungarian name for Baloň is a redirect to an article about a popular sausage. --RL0919 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 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:Municipalities of Trencsén district

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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Trencsén district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicity with Template:Trenčín District, same case as Galanta District template here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_4 Yopie (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier precedents. - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another language fork that is redundant to the template that uses the proper article names. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Hungarian names are still considered relevant, the alternative Hugarian names may be added to the already existent template (Iaaasi (talk) 06:17, 2 March 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:ShouldGetALife

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 Magioladitis (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive and an uncivil title Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is no longer in use. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is the point in saying that an image is "fine the way it is?" I would think this is the default state. Are we going to tag every image as being fine? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose would be to have a template to MARK my own images to avoid getting tagged with Template:ShouldBeSVG. If adding my smiley face template can protect me from being annoyed, that's a good thing. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points of order. Your images? You gave them away by adding them to the public domain. And secondly, what is wrong with 'your' images being either converted to svg or you producing them in that format in the first place? As those images are now in the public domain it's perfectly acceptable to request that they be converted by the use of tags. This smacks of WP:POINT, so I'd put that forward as another reason to delete this facetious template. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YEP, they are MY images not in the sense of POSSESSION, but in terms of RESPONSIBILITY. There's no one else who's gonna reproduce them independent of me, or not any time soon, so they're my responsibility to improve at my convenience, and I don't need annoying "SHOULD" templates on then. If you'd like to suggest a rename on the template, that's fine, but my point stands. I'll be glad to add a template on all FUTURE PNG images I upload until its convenient to upload as SVG, and that's my problem not yours, and if you see my template, perhaps you'll leave me alone! Right? Tom Ruen (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. While you're wasted time, how about debugging the SVG encoders so this little old 2.8Meg SVG

file renders, compared to my 200k PNG version

. Thanks! Tom Ruen (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{ShouldbeSVG}} is the same as the {{Vectorize}}, but I suppose you wouldn't like that as being too abrupt. You should read up on public domain. Once released there it is neither your responsibility nor anyone else's. If you don't want to be 'bothered' with other people's suggestions then I suggest you either choose another licence or reconsider what it means to be working in a collaborative project. As for mediaWiki's inability to render SVGs properly, what does that have to do with anything? The images you created are in the public domain for perpetuity so who's to say the renderer won't be fixed at some point in the future? Oh, and just in case you were interested I have had no input whatsoever in either of the vectorize templates, either in writing them or choosing their names. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reason to have this template. There's no reason to tell everyone the image is fine. –Grondemar 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're going to tag images you uploaded with a template thanking yourself for uploading them, in order to discourage other editors from tagging them with a meaningful template that you disagree with? Seems rather WP:POINT-y, with a helping of WP:OWN. --RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, preemptive communication! Very kind! Tom Ruen (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. that's my problem not yours Incorrect. They cease to become your (possession, responsibility, and problem) the moment you upload them. --Kbdank71 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. I create the "imperfect" images. I'm adding to the articles. I care about the quality of the images and articles. I encourage others to help improve the articles and images. You have absolutely nothing to do with this process. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that is nonsense, I suggest you read WP:OWN. Even if you create the images and add them to articles, etc, they are not yours. --Kbdank71 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said above "YEP, they are MY images not in the sense of POSSESSION, but in terms of RESPONSIBILITY." Tom Ruen (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You released them to the public domain, so no, they aren't your responsibility. Whoever wants to work on them can, and that includes adding a template that the image should be SVG. --Kbdank71 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what do I release them under to keep away the bullshit templates? How about a "leave me and my images alone for 12 months while I'm in progress licensing?" Tom Ruen (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the template I placed on those images is "bullshit" I suggest you fill out a TfD. At least you know where to go... and the likely response you'll get. Alternatively you can quit trying to make a point and go back to making your complicated, but "imperfect" images. As for your suggestion that I should get a life, well may I suggest you re-read what you have written above then place a mirror between your monitor and and chair and ask yourself if what you are doing now is living life to the full. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. --The Evil IP address (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. Close this already. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:12, 3 March 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.