Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

[edit]
[edit]
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 Redirect after substitution. It's not exactly the same as either {{URL}} or {{Ill}}, but redirecting to {{Ill}} seems reasonable. If this is not suitable, someone can redirect it to another template, or take it to WP:RFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template. All remaining transclusions are on talk pages or in userspace. Redundant to standard wiki markup and other templates such as {{URL}}. Mhiji (talk) 23:06, 27 November 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:WBToonChar

[edit]
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. WOSlinker (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:WBToonChar with Template:Infobox character.
The former is an infobox for a subset of the articles the latter can be used for. The former has been completely compatible with the latter since the trimming of the former's infobox fields in 2007, so it's now redundant. --Mepolypse (talk) 19:46, 27 November 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:Serbian language periods

[edit]
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. I'm satisfied that the discussion got sufficient exposure now, and thus closing keep despite no additional !votes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbian language periods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather pointless and misleading navbox, without scientific justification. It is apparently created by analogy with Old/Middle/etc. English, but no such analogy exists. The periods mentioned are not really evolutions of Serbian language, but rather some literary standards in history, only loosely connected. Item 3, Old Serbian is a dab page. The history of Serbian is explained on the Serbian language article, the navbox is just... connecting some random historical dots. No such user (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: How can it be misleading? then we should also delete the English template as in reality it is exactly the same (Proto-English/Proto-Serbian (Slavic), Middle English/Middle (Old) Serbian), the Serbian language article is to be majorly expanded, with Old Serbian becoming an article of its own. --Zoupan (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there was no such language as "Old Serbian". If you mean slavjanosrpski, we have a stub article Slavoserbian. The situation is not nearly the same as Proto-English/Old english/Middle english: in Serbian, those "phases" were literary language "standards", used only by church and cultural elites, and were distant from spoken language. We have much less data about evolution of spoken language, and 1) it would be difficult to discern "historical Serbian" from "historical Bosnian" or "historical Croatian" and 2) we had an evolution of dialects (Old Shtokavian->neoshtokavian) and intense migrations. So, both the Old Church Slavonic and Slavoserbian were, speaking in terms of evolution, dead ends rather than actual phases in language development. Thus the navbox is misleading -- it describes the historical dead-ends rather than the evolution of "core" language. No such user (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And, besides, we already have {{South Slavic languages sidebar}}, which does the navigation job better. No such user (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zoupan. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from relisting admin: This template is being relisted specifically because the TFD tag was removed from the template itself, and therefore many interested users may have been unaware that a deletion discussion was going on. Please do not remove deletion discussion tags while a deletion discussion is ongoing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unlike {{History of English}}, this uses an acre of whitespace to display a very few links that can readily be handled in article prose. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:14, 28 November 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:Derek Walcott

[edit]
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 copy-paste move repaired. Template:Derek Walcott plays deleted, then Template:Derek Walcott moved to Template:Derek Walcott plays. Nonadministrator closure. Bsherr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derek Walcott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, (except for one User page) redundant to Template:Derek Walcott Plays. EmanWilm (talk) 01:59, 27 November 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:Sporting goods

[edit]
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 too diffuse. No prejudice against creating navigation templates for manufacturers of particular types of sporting goods. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sporting goods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As there is a wide variety of sports, indiscriminate is the reason why I nominate this template for deletion as it is one word to describe this template as it consists of those who specialises in heart rate monitors, shoes, sportswear and what next, do we also include bicycles, even a manufacturer of bicycle components is included there. If the decision was to keep, what do we do next, include manufacturers of gym equipments, motorsport equipment manufacturers, tyre manufacturers and racecar constructors, even if that include car manufacturers. Do we also include gun manufacturers since shooting is a olympic sport.

At the end of the day, sooner or later, this template will get too big for its own good, hence my rationale for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The population is much too large for a useful navbox. It doesn't even include Sporting goods manufacturers of the United States yet. This is category fare. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above Mhiji (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Alter. I think the criticisms brought up by Donnie Park are good points. I am the original creator of the template - please take a look at this first version. I'm not sure why someone deleted the United States line but I assume it was a mistake as the template format can be confusing. When I created it I meant it to be "Major Athletic Apparel Manufacturers by Country" - not gym equipment, motorsport/tyres, guns or really any other equipment but large perhaps Publicly Traded apparel companies. Titling it with 'sporting goods' was a bad choice. I agree as it is, its too broad. Therefore, I suggest it be kept but made more focused in scope. --LEKI (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Apparently the navbox template is limited to displaying 20 groups - that's why the US wasn't showing up. I deleted all the redlinks from the template as they should not be there. I also retitled the template (just the title, not yet moved or renamed) with a more narrow scope. Further suggestions could be helpful. Thanks! LEKI (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The new caption, "Major team sports athletic apparel and ball manufacturers by country," makes this look even more arbitrary and indiscriminate. Why are balls grouped with apparel, but not racquets, bats, &tc.? Are curling stones, being rounder than rugby and American footballs, considered balls? Are shuttlecocks categorically different from tennis balls? Are mitts, skates, & skis apparel or equipment? Is horse tack apparel since it is worn? From a broader perspective I do not understand why navigation by nationality is useful. It strikes me as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, unless there is some significant market differentiation of which I am ignorant. (If there is, perhaps someone should write an article about it.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:52, 2 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_27&oldid=1078564667"