Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

Template:Wpr

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) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ironically unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 13 June 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:XCF

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) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unlikely to be used. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 13 June 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:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree

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) 04:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, mostly redlinks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 13 June 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:OrganicBox small

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) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OrganicBox small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 13 June 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:Ébauche

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) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very recently created this as a deprecated template after discovering it was being used in many French Commune articles. There is a corresponding template on the French Wikipedia. The short term purpose is to use it to help identify and clean up these uses. I was debating adding a tracking category to it, so transclusions could be cleaned up as the appeared. However, I am generally indifferent to keeping it if someone else wants to help with the clean up. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's the French Wikipedia stub template, couldn't a bot be run once in a while that automatically checks what articles call the non-existent template and replace it with the generic {{stub}} ? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 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:Portail

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) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in content namespace, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very recently created this as a deprecated template after discovering it was being used in many French Commune articles. There is a corresponding template on the French Wikipedia. The short term purpose is to use it to help identify and clean up these uses. I was debating adding a tracking category to it, so transclusions could be cleaned up as the appeared. However, I am generally indifferent to keeping it if someone else wants to help with the clean up. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't a bot be run once in a while that checks whether any articles link to this non-existent template and delete all instances of it? This is the French Wikipedia {{portal}} template, as each wikipedia has different sets of portals, this is useless, and misleading, since it would likely try to access portals that don't exist on English Wikipedia. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been cleaned out of all articles except one, which I just updated. Remaining transclusions are in user sandboxes, which those editors should be able to clean up for themselves. Since this exists in fr-wiki, it will probably appear again in transwikied articles, but the "What links here" function works even if the page is deleted, so the template doesn't need to exist in order to find them. --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 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:Muslim

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 per prior discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Muslim-usc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 13 June 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:Divisor classes

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 for now. The last TFD didn't close very long ago with the same result. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divisor classes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this template, and don't understand why it was renamed. (It actually deserves a new name, but no one changed what was wrong with the name.) As Epstein said when this was nominated for deletion before, deletion will screw up the formatting of former versions of pages, while gaining nothing. Randall Bart Talk 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is now superseded by Template:Divisor classes navbox, but it was only deprecated six weeks ago, so it is still required for proper formatting of old versions of articles, as per David Eppstein's argument in the April 2010 TfD. Let's leave it at least 6 months before housekeeping. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 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:Inote

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) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creates an "invisible note" in the content; not any different from HTML comment markup which is much easier to pick out -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear that I'd previously nominated an identically-intentioned template in the past. Anyway, this obviously isn't necessary on top of HTML comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The documentation (from 2005) explains this template as a placeholder for information that can later be transferred to "whatever note/reference system gets developed for wikimedia", which is clearly an outdated purpose. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 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:Hnote

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) 23:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Explain-hnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in one article; creates an line reference with ^[N] that includes a hover note; very non-standard referencing method; violates accessibility guidelines -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that {{Explain-hnote}} is used to explain the concept in the article— this should be deleted as a dependent template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little used and goes directly against the WP:ACCESS guideline. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 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:Match in progress

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 Reluctantly withdrawn. I agree with those who argue that it's a compromise among several bad options. However, the template still assists practices that unquestioningly violate the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic project. --78.34.195.112 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match in progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is designed to serve a deeply unencyclopedic purpose: To mark results of matches which are still in live progress. Such results should generally not be included on Wikipedia. The template thus serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted. 78.34.195.112 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, as the creator (just this evening) of the template, I agree with the anonymous proposer that it shouldn't be necessary, and that scores of matches in progress should not be posted. But we need to be realistic: it happens, and keeps on happening, despite reversions and pleading by many of those on WP:SOCCER, including me. An implicit convention of putting the score in italics until the final whistle might serve those who frequent match listing articles, but is not helpful to irregular visitors. I am sure the creators of many templates (especially those that warn about vandalism, poor etiquette, dead links, unsourced claims etc) do so in the hope that the template will rarely be needed: I do the same, but with a sense of pragmatism that, given that scores are regularly posted while a match is in progress, and given the experience that trying to revert such only results in edit-warring, we need a suitable remedy up our collective sleeve. It is a template I had considered doing for some time, but I was finally prompted into action by this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Makes sense, I guess. It's still a sad state and it should imho be possible to establish a rule against it and to sanction against violations. Those people who update live scores are rarely a net positive for the project even in their other areas of interest. --78.34.195.112 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. Would be brilliant if this wasn't needed, but it is. The least bad of several bad options. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree it's not ideal that certain match scores are updated on Wikipedia whilst in progress, but the template is useful in making it clear that the match concerned is not a final score. Eldumpo (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see argumentation of the two previous votes. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no votes in discussions. --78.34.195.112 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 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:Cleanup-german

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) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-german (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and unlikely to see much use in the future. If this particular issue comes up again then use the generic Cleanup template with the reason parameter filled in.RDBury (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is deprecated, {{Notenglish-section}} should be used instead, which also can be adjusted to any language. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 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:Penthouse Pets of 1973

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 per prior discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1973 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1974 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1975 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1986 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1988 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes containing only redlinks, therefore unused and utterly useless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons outlined in my argument at the other discussion linked by Plastikspork. --RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 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:Britannica

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 for now, and attempt to fix the problem. I would suggest asking for assistance at WT:WPT or WP:VPT. No prejudice against renomination if it turns out to be unfixable. RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Encyclopedia Britannica now uses a url scheme based on reference numbers for articles rather than names, so the template with its simple code doesn't work any longer. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs technical help. It is working fine at Nero and Irina Press and George Orwell (for example). The code already seems to be structured specifically to use a reference number scheme. Perhaps you simply found one or two broken instances?
Ah, a broken instance is at Polycarp, which I cannot determine how to fix. Technical help anyone? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in that case it should be mentioned in the (non-existant) template documentation that we now have to use the reference number from Britannica rather than a topic's name. And someone shold have a bot correct the references that are still out there not using numbers. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: When you compare {{Britannica|9057505}} from George Orwell, the number there does not match the number in the url at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433643/George-Orwell, so it's apparently not indicative. De728631 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 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.