Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26

Template:Editnotice for lists of institutions

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotice for lists of institutions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate for use on articles (I've just removed the only three such instances). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 26 December 2011 (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:Lang

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; this belongs at WP:VPR -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggestion: Mandate three-letter ISO codes I suggest that we force the use of three-letter ISO codes for this and all other language templates to keep in step with ISO 639. If any template is using a two-letter code, it can still function properly and include the article in the appropriate category, but it can also be put into a hidden tracking category for fixing manually by interested users. What does everybody else think? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a TfD issue. Please bring this up in a more appropriate forum (WP:VPR?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lang attribute in the HTML spec which then refers to the bcp47 rfc which then states in section 2.2.1 what the format of the lang attribute should be. It's probably better to use the lang code directly rather than using the 3 letter ISO 639 code with a #switch statement to convert it to the correct lang code for use within the html. (The IANA registry for lang codes is here.) -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2011 (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:2012 USOC

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 USOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Placeholder template. Tournament won't be completed until late 2012, so this template is not needed until then, if at all. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This template is already in use, as the page for the 2012 tournament is already built, and is going to be used. Covering the tournament is an ordeal in itself, so having as much done beforehand makes things easier to ensure the tournament is recorded accurately. Mtndrums (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this template until it serves an actual navigational purpose. If you want it "pre-built", I recommend placing it in your user space. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2011 (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 tennis event 2

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 Merge -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tennis event 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox tennis event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tennis event 2 with Template:Infobox tennis event.
Similar templates, each requesting that any updates also be made to the other. Merging will remove that maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are not exactly similar. Template:Infobox tennis event 2 is made for tournaments with different names for the singles and the doubles, or the men's and the women's events, like this one. They can be merged, of course, but only if that functionality is somehow added to Template:Infobox tennis event. --JMDP (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my intention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - OK, then. --JMDP (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I can't see any reason why not. Kapitan110295 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Better to merge them if possible. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a merged version in Template:Infobox tennis event/sandbox which everyone is welcome to test. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. And thanks for that. --JMDP (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added an hCalendar microformat. Would it also be worth converting to {{Infobox}} at this stage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

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:RAJAPATTAI Official website

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RAJAPATTAI Official website (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Singe-use (and replaced); redundant to {{Official}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 26 December 2011 (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:Alvia color

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alvia color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete the related Template:Alvia stations and Template:Alvia lines as those are also unused. I have already explained the purpose of these types of templates to you, so that you can look beyond each individual one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2011 (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:Allen Aviation Corp

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allen Aviation Corp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bulwersator. I have been busy filling in the holes in the aeroengine project by creating templates for all of the manufacturers listed at List of aircraft engines and List of aircraft engine manufacturers. Granted there are lots of 'red links', but those allow others to identify missing articles. Over the last couple of years I alone have started more than 30 articles, with others contributing many more than myself.

For that reason, I ask these 'empty' templates remain in place.

Buster40004 Talk 05:23, 31 December 2011 (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:Alkali metals navbox

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alkali metals navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, currently hard-coded into alkali metal, the only article I can think of where it would make sense to use this. String Theory¹¹ 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StringTheory11. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2011 (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:Algerian writers

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algerian writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better served by a list article or category. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (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:Algeria projects

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria projects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unused Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (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:Algeria border crossings

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria border crossings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (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:Aldehydes

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CHEM notified. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2011 (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:Alchemy

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relevant wikiprojects notified. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I updated the links and am putting the template to use. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeraphine Gryphon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of this template and the related outline page needs a major overhaul if it is to be kept. Contains misleading information. ex. Its list of processes, alchemists, works etc. are incomplete and not a meaningful summary. Is the template useful enough to warrant keeping and repairing? Car Henkel (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Needing some or even major improvements is not cause for deletion. I believe that it's useful and don't believe that it or the outline are dangerously misleading; if the outline needs a major improvement then I'm sure there's a maintenance template for that. The contents of the navbox should probably be discussed on Talk:Alchemy, or maybe the talkpage of WikiProject Occult. See also: Wikipedia:A navbox on every page (an essay). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did update the links but I basically just tried to quickly fix it up enough to be okay for inclusion on pages; I personally don't consider it completed as it is, but I'm also not deeply knowledgeable enough (nor that interested) about the topic to take it upon myself to do an extensive overhaul. But it's decent enough to be used on pages. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I'll do my best to help out with that and will continue this on the related talk pages. Thanks. Car Henkel (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a template that has a place and simply needs to be improved and used. Yworo (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2011 (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:Albanian counties labelled map 2

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albanian counties labelled map 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear, unlabelled Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an unused fork of template:Albanian counties labelled map. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (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:Alaris lines

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alaris lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2011 (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:PD-Azerbaijan

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, all files with this template were/should be migrated to commons. Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since PD files are permitted locally, it's helpful to have templates to tag them with. --N Y Kevin @915, i.e. 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid deletion rationale. Even if images that fall under this license tag should be moved to Commons, any existing files using it (as well as any new local uploads) would still require a license tag, and this is still a valid tag here in enwiki. While free files are encouraged to use Commons, they are not prohibited here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:26, 30 December 2011 (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:PD-AB-exempt

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AB-exempt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, all files with this template were/should be migrated to commons. Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for compatibility with {{KeepLocal}}. Not all migrated files will be deleted, and it's helpful to have PD templates available for those that will stay. --N Y Kevin @914, i.e. 20:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid deletion rationale. Even if images that fall under this license tag should be moved to Commons, any existing files using it (as well as any new local uploads) would still require a license tag, and this is still a valid tag here in enwiki. While free files are encouraged to use Commons, they are not prohibited here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:27, 30 December 2011 (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:Katharine Hepburn

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. Decision to split or not to split the template should be made after a separate discussion. Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Katharine Hepburn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposed deletion: MOS:FILM#Navigation: WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film articl Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator: I created this template when I didn't realise actor ones were discouraged. If it makes any difference, Hepburn did have a starring role in every one of her films apart from Love Affair, so the template's appearance on each film is justified. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid navbox and if Hepburn had in fact a starring role in most of her films we can well ignore the project guideline in this case. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She literally had a leading role in every film she appeared in apart from Love Affair, the very last one, and even then she was a major part of the film's marketing (so was a major aspect of the film). If there's any actor template that could be an exception to the rule, it's this one. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a perfectly valid navbox, but rm filmography per MOS:FILM#Navigation. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 02:59, 26 December 2011 (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:Cite web quick

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web quick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplicate of {{Cite web}} with most of its functionality stripped out. It was used on a handful of pages and removed without incident. As it was undocumented, it took a while to figure out what the purpose was. It was created to get around Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, by providing a citation template with fewer parameters and less overhead. The fact that some pages end up exceeding template include size is a) usually a sign that WP:SUMMARY is not being followed and the page should be split, and b) that a broader discussion needs to happen about what to do about the limitation.

From the citation template angle, forking off one's own personal idea of what is "good enough" for citation information and quietly putting it into articles without any discussion or explanation is certainly not the way to go about this. A far more useful approach would be to come to consensus at WT:Verifiability (and advertise the discussion at Template talk:Citation/core and WT:Citing sources and WT:Reliable sources) on what data is and is not essential to a citation, then give Citation/core a |basic=y (or whatever) parameter that uses a shortened subset of the gnarly citation metatemplate code. What citation information doesn't make the cue will, I guarantee, be a long and thorny discussion.

And what this template was actually used for was intentionally providing incomplete citations for which much data literally could not be added without getting rid of this template, in seemingly completely random articles that did not need template shortening. It took many hours to clean up the Cat article alone. It was also added to misc. infoboxes that don't appear to have a template include size problem, but that was much less of a problem. The {{Cite book quick}} version was speedied. The speedy deletion of this template was declined (by its creator, natch), which is why it's at TfD instead of just gone. PS: It's also misnamed, since it is not quicker to use than {{Cite web}}, just dumbed down to not display all the data you enter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; duplicate of existing template. Pages with too much templates should be using hardcoded refs (see WP:BOTREQ archives). mabdul 04:12, 26 December 2011 (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.