Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30

Template:RadioListings

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) 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template refers to a personal website that is neither a reliable source nor - according to consensus - acceptable as an external link. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a vendetta by a single editor against the RadioListings database. Having failed to get consensus for his viewpoint he then raised the issue in a non-neutral way. As it is well-known that a survey of opinion with a biased question will produce a biased result, this discussion can hardly then be taken as a demonstration of concensus. There have been tens of thousands of views of Wikipedia pages containing this external link and only this single editor has raised an issue - that could be taken as a concensus that most editors have no objection to RadioListings as an external link.

The RadioListings database does not appear to meet the definition of a Personal web page "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". It is a database mainly comprising information supplied by the BBC about their radio programmes. Jim Craigie (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've adopted such a combative stance, I assure you my only interest here is in protecting and maintaining the quality of articles.

Despite solicitations at two project noticeboards (1, 2), not one other editor has expressed the view Radiolistings.co.uk is an acceptable external link, either at the External Links Noticeboard or at the talk page where this debate began. This is not the forum to continue shopping for editors who attest to the legitimacy of the site. Keeping the template requires evidence to counter the argument that - as a pointer to a website that is neither a reliable source nor an acceptable external link - it is a template that is not used and has no likelihood of being used. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and clean up this list as well. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 31 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:Argentine Football Museum Hall of Fame

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) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentine Football Museum Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unwikified template. I have never heard of such a hall of fame, there is no trace of it on the web. It seems to be a fan's favorites list more than anything else. Maimai009 17:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:36, 1 April 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:User wikipedia/acc pledge

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) 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia/acc pledge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template as the original page it was linked to was inappropriate and thus deleted. /ƒETCH COMMS / 14:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use for it anymore. Krashlandon ^(talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G8 it. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created both this template and the related page, which was earlier deleted. The related page has been restored by me, post discussions with the deleting administrator (who allowed the restore), as the speedy was inappropriate given no clear consensus for a speedy deletion. I have initiated deletion discussions for that particular page. I request that this particular deletion discussion be kept in abeyance till the original page's deletion discussions culminate. In case the decision there is to delete the original page, I shall ensure that this template - and any other related pages - are also deleted. Thanks. I think the discussions on the related MfD are quite clear now. I have no issues with this template being deleted. Thanks Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Only use is to come off as snobbery and show what you have that someone else doesn't, the actual policy has no basis in Wikipedia policy--Terrillja _talk 13:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page that this refers to is currently at Mfd; we should probably wait to close this until that ends first. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:18, 5 April 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:Brazil Squad 1990 World cup

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) 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil Squad 1990 World cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subject already covered by this template. Wrong and unwikified content Maimai009 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 11:44, 31 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:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1950-1959 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1960-1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1970-1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1980-1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1990-1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay2000-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1961-1980 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1981-2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 2001-2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 with Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960.
Following the results of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_22#Category:Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Screenplay_templates, we should now consider merging the redundant templates. Category:Academy Award for Best Writing templates is one of only two subcategories at Category:Academy Award templates that uses 10-year periods (the other is Category:Academy Award for Best Film Editing templates). Also in the broader context, of theatrical award templates it is one of the few using only 10-year periods. See also Category:BAFTA Awards templates, Category:Golden Globe Awards templates, Category:Screen Actors Guild Award templates, Category:Emmy Awards navigational boxes, Category:Tony Award templates. Most subcats of these categories use 20- and 25-year periods. In this case, by merging you could merge these 10-year templates into existing 20-year templates. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, especially since the new template would be following some other established conventions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support - I don't see any reason not to do this. I think it will help eliminate unnecessary templates and condense things into more manageable numbers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thinking about it in retrospect, I should have done the templates with 20 year increments the first time out. Donmike10 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 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.

Omaha-related transportation templates

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, there has been significant progress made in reducing the redundancy since the discussion was first initiated. There are still a considerable number of redlinks in the Blvd template. Feel free to renominate any of these if there are still existing issues to be resolved. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:Omaha Railroads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not necessarily looking to delete all of these, but there is some redundancy among these templates that should be worked out. –Fredddie ™ 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redundancy is with OmahaTransport, which I have yet to work out. Suggestions are appreciated. • Freechildtalk 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have been more clear. –Fredddie ™ 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is a definite redundancy. I'd say Keep the Omaha transport one and Delete the rest. However the Omaha transport one needs to be trimmed a little bit. For example, do we need the airlines on there? --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the redundancy from OmahaTransport by removing the redundant info and adding a line for related templates. There is probably a more graceful way to code this, for those who do that work primarily. The related templates add to navigational ease and should remain. • Freechildtalk 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also trimmed the main Omaha Transportation template. • Freechildtalk 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The templates each serve their useful purpose. Dough 48 72 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the railroad one—this shows info that probably wouldn't be able to be merged (as most of it is old stuff, which really shouldn't be included in the main transport template). Merge the Boulevards template with the streets and expressways templates (not mentioned) to create a new template, Omaha roads. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:29, 26 March 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) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:OmahaBlvd as it contains mainly redlinks. Keep all others. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This group of templates provides useful navigation. I have done considerable work on all of the templates listed here since the initial posting, and that is not being taken into account. This TfD is clearly a clusterlump, and if anything, only the original template listed should be considered. • Freechildtalk 16:51, 22 April 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.