Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26

Template:Infobox Prison Break character

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) 02:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Prison Break character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox character}} with "series = Prison Break" Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who has a great track record with these things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—would be CSD T3-eligible, and would be if substituted in all current usages. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:Replicant character

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) 02:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replicant character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited use template (only in one article) which is redundant to either {{infobox character}} or something else. Seems to have a bit too much "in universe" cruft (in my opinion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. This sort of mash-up of boxes frequently happens as a result of merges. Rather than some other box, some of the crufty bits could be, like, incorporated into prose. And Deckard's a replicant, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—would be CSD T3-eligible, but still in use. Otherwise, it's just redundant now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:Infobox Sesame Street character

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) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sesame Street character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox character}}, so I replaced the backend to just pass parameters to that template. Given that it is redundant, I suggest substituting this template, which would replace it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and support subst, as above. This is all moving in the appropriate direction. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—would be CSD T3-eligible, and would be if substituted in all current usages. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:Rome character

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) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rome character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox character}}. It was only being used on about a dozen pages, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—CSD T3-eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:Strawberry Shortcake character

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) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strawberry Shortcake character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to {{Infobox character}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—CSD T3-eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:The 4400 character

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) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The 4400 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox character}}. It was only being used on about 10 pages, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—CSD T3-eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:User wikipedia/WikiAdmin

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 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia/WikiAdmin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template which just contains a single image that could be used directly. Template not in use. WOSlinker (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:User talk:iBen

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) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User talk:iBen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems more talk page related than content for a template. WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misplaced talk? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—can we misplace this into the trash can? Does look very useful to the encyclopedia at all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted this as a test page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 29 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:User sow

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 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a template for this. Could be put directly on the single article it is used on. WOSlinker (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete T3 Replace with {{Infobox shopping mall}} per nom. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—substitute and then it's CSD T3-eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 28 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:Taxon

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 to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion reason 2: redundant to a better-designed template and per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. Snek01 (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, premature deletion nomination, no valid argument, discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been reached. --Stefan ^talk 00:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As indicated, this template is part of an ongoing discussion (link above) to generate community consensus on the best way of incorporating taxon identifiers into Wikipedia articles. It would be rash to delete it until consensus has been reached. -- Gaurav (talk) 10:26, 27 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:TaxonIds

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion reason 2: redundant to a better-designed template and per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. Snek01 (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This template is used on around 15 articles. However, despite the instruction at the top of this page that "Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.", the template has been repeatedly and unilaterally removed by User:Snek01 (who also tried and failed to have the template speedily deleted, even after starting this discussion). Special:Whatlinkshere will not therefore give an accurate representation of this template's usage. I can provide a list of the articles if required. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template that has multiple issues since its start and that have been placed in few articles for testing purposes can be removed from articles if there are multiple reasons (related to multiple policies, guidelines and if there is different traditional way already used) until its issues will be solved. Fell free to ask at Wikiproject about certain diffs in further discussion and I will be glad to explain, what was wrong and why the improvement of certain article resulted in removing of certain template. It is also logical, that still problematic template intended for massive usage should not rather be used in articles to prevent its incorrect usage, because template may be changed or replaced or deleted. --Snek01 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. {{TaxonIds}} is a much more elegant and useful template than the proposed alternative. There may be some redundancy, but this is the better-designed template. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a currently active discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links regarding the best strategy for bringing this information into Wikipedia articles. This suggestion also received some support in a recent discussion at Template talk:Taxobox#NCBI Taxonomy IDs (see Template talk:Taxobox#Trial); it's likely that this will be the "last template standing" at the end of the above discussion. -- Gaurav (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eligible for CSD T2 and CSD T3. --Snek01 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is room for both individual external link templates (such as {{WRMS species}}) and this template that's cumulative. It is not a duplication. TaxonIDs template will benefit the reader by providing a consistent interface to link out to external bio-database pages. This is similar to {{commons}} and {{wikinews}} template boxes that are placed on the right-hand side of external links section. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons noted above and in all the previous linked discussions. It's worth noting there is really only one user actively opposed to this template. While Snek01's input is welcomed and valued, it's clear that this is the only dissenting voice. See also the list of other supporting users at Template_talk:Taxobox#Latest_prototype_straw_poll. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "Latest prototype straw pool" is an interesting example. It was even labeled "who are still here?". Fortunately wikipedia is not voting. When AndrewGNF started this his "last" voting, he intentionally/unintentionally ignored the opinions above, that were not only resolved, but some were not even started solved. - Nobody will "vote" if he/she knows, that his opinion is ignored even prior voting. That is the reason, that he received no answers. Even now AndrewGNF try to try to give the impression, that everything is all right. For example let me to cite, for example User:Petter Bøckman: "I see little use for the parameter." or by User:Yzx: "it's that there is nothing approaching consensus across the many branches of biology about the use of any particular ID number system for species, ..." There are not many clear opinions like this, because discussion have started about something and have "ended" with something completely different. But there are issues with this template. Those issues are so serious, that even one so called "active" user can very easily de facto completely stop all the template's uses. Do not ignore issues from the past. No matter how many active or passive users are pointing on them. Solve them or change strategy. Or at least try to avoid words like this "It's worth noting there is really only 10 dissenting persons supporting something." Focus not only to quick adding something but also on to all phases of development of an article including its theoretical idealized final phase. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who would like to follow the complete discussion linked above, you can see that the original proposal underwent many changes and improvements in response to user comments. The ongoing conversation certainly hasn't been hidden, and the only person who has registered any dissent recently is Snek01. Thankfully, consensus does not require unanimity. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, premature deletion nomination, no valid argument, discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been reached. --Stefan ^talk 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template has been the result of a long discussion. The main point is to have links to external dbs in one clear and distinguishable place, so that readers can rely on this. This is not the case in the proposed alternative (namely individual links that look just like other external links). MichaK (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Pointy nom, no reason for delete at this time. Verbal chat 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is a much more elegant solution than the collection of individual templates, in comparison to which Snek01 has branded this one as "redundant". Removing the individual templates instead would furthermore cut down on the unnecessary proliferation of templates. Jay L09 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I am not convince that this template does any harm.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a useful template. --Paul (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim by Snek01 (talk) that this template qualifies as CSD T2 is Patent nonsense (CSD G1). Perhaps we should speedily delete the comments by Snek01 about deleting this template. — Jay L09 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 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:IrishRailStation

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) 02:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned and redundant to {{Infobox station}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—eligible for CSD T3. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant. jonkerz ♠ 19:22, 9 July 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.