Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League

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 Wrong venue, should be nominated at RFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It needs to be deleted because it's a former soccer league and it's been redirected. —WayneOlajuwon (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last TFD (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 26#Template:Major Indoor Soccer League) closed as "redirect", I would say this should go to WP:RFD, or nominate the parent template instead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is probably one for RFD really, but I don't see any problems with this template as it's just a redirect from a longer name. If the destination template is the one that was meant to be nominated, that should be made clear. Robofish (talk) 12:08, 7 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:Class parameter

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. I haven't implemented the suggestion to add tracking code, but anyone that wants to is welcome to. delldot ∇. 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a subst template, being unused is normal. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has WPBannerMeta become mandatory? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated a mere five days before it was nominated. As a substituted template, it's obvious that it's not going to have any current transclusions, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "not being used". Recommend adding some temporary tracking code, waiting a couple of months to see if anyone is still using it and then relisting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 31 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:Somewebsite

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. delldot ∇. 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is currently ~~unused and unlinked (except for one instance in an inactive user's userspace)~~, and appears to have been generally disliked (judging from comments on its talk page). Template also has technical flaws leading to miscategorization. TheFeds 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I erred in assessing the uses of this template...that one link is the only instance of the template's talk page. The actual template is transcluded about a dozen times at present, and linked several more times. The problem with the existing transclusions is that they often duplicate a {{No license needing editor assistance}} tag—which is more appropriate anyway, given the threat of deletion—or are misplaced entirely (for example, here there's already a credible PD tag; here there's no evidence that the uploader grabbed it from a website at all). TheFeds 20:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment It is used in the "upload form", to catch uploads by those that do not know better. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As TheDJ says, this is used by the upload form, and it's a speedy deletion template, so pages transcluding it get deleted. There's no reason to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's used by the upload form, it's worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 12:06, 7 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:Lee DeWyze

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) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lee DeWyze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The singer has only released one single and it is way too early for this, since there is barely more here than the American Idol 8 template has. Aspects (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on precedent. Gage (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what precedent? Aspects (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It's too early for a template let's for more singles and more albums. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's just wait until he has enough singles and albums. TaylorSwift14 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, not needed at this time, and basically redundant to the main American Idol template. Robofish (talk) 12:05, 7 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:Kingstonian F.C. seasons

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) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingstonian F.C. seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox has only one article link, plus three redlinks. Jameboy (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a navbox at this time. Can be recreated when the articles have been created. Robofish (talk) 12:03, 7 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:Associated main

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) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Associated main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has identical functionality to Template:Main. *If* the word "associated" is required for some articles (and personally I don't think so), a parameter could be added to Template:Main to do this. Jameboy (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Unable to inform the template's creator as his talk page is protected. --Jameboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator has been blocked since September 2007.

Delete Redundant with Template:Main, and in some article, both are used together. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess if Associated main were to be deleted, then any remaining transclusions of it should be replaced with Main?? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes— we don't leave deleted templates hanging as redlinked markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Main}} - redundant to an older and simpler template. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 7 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:English football league system cells

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) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English football league system cells (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox isn't necessary when a maximum of three links will be present. The information won't be lost by deleting the template, as it should already be covered in the article's infobox and prose. Jameboy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I overlooked something when nominating this. Sometimes there will be three links in the navbox, but for many non-league divisions, there will be more, e.g. see usage in Midland Football Alliance#External links. I still think the template is worthy of discussion, but I'm less sure of whether it should be deleted. --Jameboy (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the links should be on the bottom line of the navbox for the relevant league; as in this edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- redundant template. There is enough information throughout league articles about promotion and relegation. --MicroX (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be included in the infobox or elsewhere, not in a separate template. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 7 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:Pakistan infobox

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) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been on for a while and is used on articles of the various Administrative units of Pakistan. I propose the infobox for deletion as it serves no real purpose. The Template:Infobox subdivision looks much better and standardised and caters to all of the information in this template. There is no point of having this; also, the green doesn't look very pretty. Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant - but note that {{Infobox subdivision}} is a redirect to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AtticusX (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this template is deleted, all pages using this template will be lacking an infobox. Could the infobox templates on those pages be changed automatically? --92.19.26.39 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All existing uses will be converted to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The green looks much better than orange.--203.99.184.67 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have separate infoboxes just for a different colour]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant per nom, and per Pigsonthewing above. (Isn't it possible to put colour in the infobox anyway?) Robofish (talk) 11:59, 7 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 Gracious Few

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) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Gracious Few (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links to actually navigate —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand this comment, are there too few links IN the template or do too few pages use it? Can you clarify please and I might be able to rectify the situation. Thnaks. Iangurteen (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both. The Gracious Few itself has less than a dozen inbound links, and most of those should be rolled into it as they're sub-stubs with no other claims to fame. Navboxes should be created as need requires, not pre-emptively created and then filled in as Wikipedia's coverage of a subject expands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Links a new band with no releases to an album that is not yet released. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:45, 3 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.