Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 2

< March 1	March 3 >

March 2

Template:SCOTUS link

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 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCOTUS link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template that does nothing but insert a piped link: [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] The same can (and generally is) achieved by linking to the redirect United States Supreme Court. Although this is mostly harmless, it's prone to being confused with Template:SCOTUSLinks. See also Template:Scotuslink, discussed below. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 2, proposing deletion of the unused redirect Template:Scotus link, which redirects to this template. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This type of template goes against the guidance offered at Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use: "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete templates are not supposed to be used for boilerplate text of partial sentences. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC);[reply]
Delete - As a reviewer of SCOTUS pages, I can see this mostly harmless template being confused with Template:SCOTUSLinks. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 08:05, 6 March 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:Scotuslink

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 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan template that does nothing but insert a piped link: [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] The same can (and generally is) achieved by linking to the redirect United States Supreme Court. Although this is mostly harmless, it's prone to being confused with Template:SCOTUSLinks. TJRC (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This type of template goes against the guidance offered at Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use: "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete templates are not supposed to be used for boilerplate text of partial sentences. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 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:Prof of Mirza

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) 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prof of Mirza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links direct to the same article. Hence not needed yet until separate articles are created Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and confusing. The template is used on two pages, one of which is the page to which all the links point (confusing) and the other is a related page where a single link to the Prophecies page in a "See also" section would suffice. — Bility (talk) 01:11, 11 March 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:Samuel Hershaw

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) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Samuel Hershaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that had only two links; I removed one because is was to naked and I'm pretty sure this guy didn't invent nudism. So proposing deletion because not everything needs a navbox. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's all to support a series of hoax articles (or at best, unreferenced articles about an nn person) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Hershaw. andy (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was some rather dodgy wikilinking going on in the Hershaw article (now removed) - this is probably to show respectability and notability. Either that, or we're spoiling someone in Year 10's homework on Wikipedia article creation... Peridon (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC). Peridon (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned and the page on which it was intended for display has been deleted. — Bility (talk) 01:14, 11 March 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:Whale

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 with no consensus for renaming. I will redirect {{Whales}} to {{Cetacea}} though. —Gƒoley Four— 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is useless. Aris riyanto (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is meant as a humor template for when trouting someone just doesn't cut it. What's your definition of useless anyways since a lot of what we do here could be considered useless since it doesn't directly benefit anything. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you should delete it. Besides, that is arguably the least persuasive deletion rationale that I have seen in a long time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Templates like this are labeled "humor" for a reason. Since when is humor useless? Gatemansgc (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clue raising templates are very useful. Also this seems to be pay back for this XfD --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless humor. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Template:Wikipedia Whale would be good. This should redirect to the whale template for articles on whales Template:Cetacea. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, as mentioned above. The template itself is intended for humorous effect and should be kept. Although naming it "{{Whale}}" instead of allowing the name to be used for something more worthy is a bit odd. The name of an animal type should instead direct to something related to the actual animal; see {{Penguins}}. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We would just name it {{Whales}} in that case. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reminder that we should never take ourselves too seriously. If we can't laugh at ourselves, we have no business laughing at anyone else. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sometimes a trout really won't cut it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Humor pages are not here for any useful purpose other than entertainment Astatine211^Talk 16:21, 8 March 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 MASH 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) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, redundant to Template:Infobox character Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's unused because I orphaned it back in January (e.g., here). I had come to the same conclusion at the time, that it's not necessary, since it's basically redundant to the more general template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. What makes a MASH character different enough to most characters that there's enough reason for a separate infobox? Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 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.