Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7

Template:Robotboy

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

doesn't navigate more than just the character list, episode list, and creator. Frietjes (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk) 19:19, 10 June 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:Football Assistant manager history

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football Assistant manager history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no uses and copy of template:football manager history. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 7 June 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:Marxist theory

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 to Marxism -- Selket ^Talk 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marxist theory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Marxist theory with Template:Marxism.
Almost completely overlaps each other. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a good idea, since, from the point of view of the user, it makes sense to have one inventory of all articles on Marxist or Marxian topics. Subtle distinctions could of course be drawn between Marxism and Marxist Theory, but it is doubtful that these subtle distinctions are helpful to user seeking to find articles on Marxist topics, nor is it clear that merging the two terms would misrepresent both of them. User:Jurriaan 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge: The two serve the same purpose. Merge them then get rid of {{Marxist theory}}. JIMp_talk·cont 05:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: See the edit ( http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Marxism&diff=289604104&oldid=45405733 ). This problem was caused by a stealthy vandal ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/60.242.166.134 )—just in case if anyone was curious!siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, they're the same thing. Maybe redirect instead? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:39, 12 June 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 MTA busline

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 or rather, no consensus for deletion. -- Selket ^Talk 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MTA busline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and superseded. Suggest placing {{Being deleted}} at the top until the ~50 transclusions are replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is currently used with 59 articles. Sebwite (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template is fine as it is. I don't see any problems with how it already is.--ETLamborghini (talk) 21:26, 31 May 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) 02:27, 7 June 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 SW books

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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SW books (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to the normal book infobox, except that it adds irrelevant (at least for an infobox) in-universe information. It should be deleted after being replaced with the norm. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes the only reason people look up a Star Wars book is to see that brief information.134.153.33.69 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep or merge parameters. I do find such information always important. mabdul 11:02, 6 June 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) 02:09, 7 June 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:KaBlam!

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KaBlam! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Majority of content redirected and merged. Now links 4 articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it actually links 5 articles. Templete is fine, it shouldnt be deleted.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:25, 21 May 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, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because only !vote is from template's creator. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the relist in that there was insufficient discussion, however, to imply that it was relisted only because the original creator was the only contributor sends the wrong message, that being that the original creator's opinion is worth less in a deletion discussion because they are the one who created the material in the first place. That's a bit insulting, as far as I'm concerned. My actual !vote is further down. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links to require a template. I doubt more could possibly be added. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough apposite articles to require a template, and no realistic prospect of same in future. This is not the correct tool for whatever job the template's creator had in mind. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template seems right on the cusp of what qualifies as too small. Certainly, it's too small for the format that it is currently in. However, I would think that restyling the template into something that presents itself all on one line would seem to work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:22, 28 May 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) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A template for a show whose time has well past and with only four links, is completely unneeded except to pretty up an article, not to mention the "List of Action League Now episodes" shouldn't have been linked in this template in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 8 June 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 given name

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 withdrawn, prior discussion on 10 January 2011 closed as merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox given name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox given name2}}. Suggestion deprecation, posting {{being deleted}}, replacement, and moving {{Infobox given name2}} to {{Infobox given name2}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 7 June 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.

Academy Award for Best Film Editing

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1934-1939 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1940-1949 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1950-1959 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1960-1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1970-1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1980-1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 1990-1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academy Award for Best Film Editing 2000-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have created a template system (See here) that is more similar to other systems at Category:Academy Award templates because it uses 20-year ranges, has an interlinking footer and the ranges end in unison with the other categories. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 27 May 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) 01:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed after restructure into larger increments. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 9 June 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:Lauren Alaina

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lauren Alaina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too early; only links to one song and the American Idol season page and tour. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too soon. Stupid fanboys/fangirls. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One song is not enough to have a navigational box since the articles are already link to each other, it makes this template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we wait for her album to actually come out before we add template cruft? Not needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer and Aspects --Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 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:Uw-biog1

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 support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-biog1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-biog2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Uw-biog1 with Template:Uw-biog2.
BLP violations should be dealt with in more immediacy than other concerns and possibly more harshly, and should escalate to level two at once or become a single-level template much like {{uw-copyright}}. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural concern Policy related templates should be addressed as a change to the underlying policy. This is probably not the right forum for this discussion. -- Selket ^Talk 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate, many BLP violations are made by newbies in good faith (just not aware of the policy and sourcing requirements). No need to go straight into "bite-mode". --KFP (contact | edits) 18:56, 14 June 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) 01:15, 7 June 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.

Indiana HS basketball scoring navboxes

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indiana HS Basketball All-time Leading Scorers navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indiana HS Boys' Basketball All-time Leading Scorers navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indiana HS Girls' Basketball All-time Leading Scorers navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Also, these amount to template clutter. Sure, being one of the top high school scorers in state history is notable enough to mention in the article, but it is not notable enough to warrant a navbox. Also, not sure why the need was felt to have a boys' template, a girls' template and a co-ed template all for the same thing. The co-ed one would have sufficed as it was, but even that falls under NENAN. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to defer to the "wikipedia heirarchy" to determine what is appropriate for inclusion in a navbox. These 3 lists were initially compiled as a way to track the rise of Deshaun Thomas up the all-time scoring list while he was still an Indiana high school player. I did not find this list anywhere else in wikipedia, and it seemed reasonable, interesting and useful for this information to be included. The navbox was the chosen presentation method for no reason other than it was understood by me and easy to implement. I for one, appreciate the navbox that shows the scoring list as I peruse the articles of the various people whose names appear on the list. Indiana high school basketball has a valued place in the athletic tradition of athletics in the USA. I have seen records and statistics presented many ways in many other places throughout wikipedia, and I think the list is relevant for inclusion. I do not know the protocol for deciding whether information gets presented as charts, tables, articles, navboxes, infoboxes, etc.; but it seems to me it would be wrong to summarily delete the information if it is not presented elsewhere in wikipedia content. Those who know wikipedia protocol can debate and determine where and how is the best way to present the information. If not as a navbox under NENAN standards, I strongly believe the information and the efforts of those who contributed the compilation of this material should be preserved. Jlhcpa (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by saying the players on these lists might deserve to have the fact they were prolific high school scorers mentioned in the prose of their articles. However, there are multiple issues here. (1) The all-time scorers lists will likely need updating every single year, especially given they extend to the top 20 players - a large number for inclusion. (2) Branching off of point 1, why are there 20 players listed? It's an extremely arbitrary cutoff. (3) Branching off of point 2, Wikipedia does not condone excessive lists of statistics. Lastly (4), if you want to keep track of these yourself, keep the list in userspace somewhere, not in the mainspace English Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 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) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is a reason 20 is a magic number, this is not notable information.Curb Chain (talk) 06:15, 7 June 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:Masters of Russian Animation

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Masters of Russian Animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's no need for a navbox, when only two of the listed films have articles. The sub-navboxes (some of them don't have any links at all) should be deleted too. User<Svick>.Talk(); 19:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as ~~nominator~~ creator. I am going to create more articles if I have the time. See my Sandbox number 12, a special sandbox for animations like those from Masters of Russian Animation.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Template:Infobox_Masters_of_Russian_Animation. All of the reasons that applied then apply now. -- Selket ^Talk 22:39, 30 May 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, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The time for this template would be when a lot more of the articles are written. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 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:Australia Cricket Team

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Cricket Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no official squad for the Australian cricket team, making this template unverifiable. If this template uses some other criteria, it is not explained. Ignorant Armie s 15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The National Selection Panel announce an official squad each year which is explained here (which is linked to from the template). Moondyne (talk) 01:35, 30 May 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) 01:10, 7 June 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:Cr-IPL/Flags

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cr-IPL/Flags (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Images in this template were invented for wiki removing them would render the template pointless and so should be deleted Gnevin (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is used in many userboxes. mabdul 18:25, 2 June 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) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no indication that these "flags" are used out side WP and, that being the case they should be deleted. Mtking (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis of new material. – Pee Jay 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we have template:color box and related for such decoration. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 9 June 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.