Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26

Template:WINRHPDate

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 move to a subpage of the article to retain the history and delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin topnav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{WINRHPDate}} is only transcluded by {{National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin topnav}}, which itself is unused (the content has been embedded into National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. DH85868993 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think these templates are not currently used, but their existence keeps history versions of a good number of Wisconsin NRHP list-articles readable. If they are deleted, the history versions look error-ridden. Deleting vs. Keeping has no effect, is not important for the current Wikipedia viewable by readers. There is no functional, space-saving reason for deletion of these templates. I don't see why it is suggested. But, it is important to preserve the history of Wikipedia development, and I have noticed others occasionally making the same argument about some Wikiproject workpages and that saving-the-history-of-Wikipedia argument prevailing. The Wisconsin NRHP list-articles were among the earlier / first ones developed out by WikiProject NRHP editors, including me. I happened to make a special effort to develop out Wisconsin list-articles to serve a couple active photographer/editors in Wisconsin, before various changes to the standard templates were developeed. What was done there and figured out there is indirectly important for Wikipedia in keeping the history of Wikipedia's development understandable. Also it is mildly important to me personally as I have claimed my development of the Wisconsin list-articles was a significant positive contribution that should be recognized, e.g. in one recent discussion (permanent link to discussion, see section "hey") with a Wisconsin photographer-editor. Pointing to past versions of some of those list-articles seemed to help defuse some disagreement. And I expect I personally could want to make the same claim and point to earlier and later list-article versions in future discussions. --do ncr am 16:08, 21 August 2012 (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) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates don't benefit the encyclopedia, and I can't make head nor tail of doncram's argument that these templates contain some important paper trail regarding the histories of the articles that they link to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- these are old enough that viewing old revisions shouldn't be a serious argument. if someone wants to keep them for historical reasons, then move them to project or user space. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 4 September 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.

Summer Olympic bids 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 delete, as they are almost entirely redlinks. If someone wants to create a merged template, go ahead, but it's not clear there would be enough to navigate even with the blue links from all these templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there are only three blue links in the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 2000 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there are only two blue links in the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1996 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1992 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there are only two blue links in the template, and one of them is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1988 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there are only two blue links in the template, and one of them is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1984 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1980 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1976 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1972 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1968 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1964 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bids for the 1960 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, there is only one blue link in the template and even that is a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Summer Olympic bids templates)

It would make more sense, given the very low number of articles in each navbox nominated to have a single navbox template named {{Summer Olympic bids}} (or something like that) featuring just the blue links from every olympic games. Thus I support the idea that all the existing templates be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Biker2-- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and Oppose Merge as overtemplating. We already have {{Olympics bids}} so there is no point in merging and creating yet another navbox for essentially only the summer portion of the existing navbox. -- Whpq (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment They're not the same, since that template does not link to the bid articles, only to the bid selection articles, unless you mean to expand that template? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify red links to point to the articles on the cities in question instead of non-existent bid articles. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What would that accomplish? These are navigation boxes for navigating between articles on the Olympic bids. the articles on the cities themselves are not articles on the Olympic bids. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (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) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

either merge the blue links, or delete them all. the current presentation is excessive, and it seems unlikely that someone is going to actually write the articles for the redlinked cities for prior years. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 4 September 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:Footer USA Volleyball 2008 Summer Olympics

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer USA Volleyball 2008 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This year I noticed that 2012 Swimming, Track & Field and Basketball teams all had Olympic team templates. I started creating several years of Boxing, Gymnastics and other years for Track & Field teams. Now I have started creating Volleyball templates. These are somewhat redundant with Template:United States women volleyball team 2008 Olympics and Template:USA Squad 2008 Men's Olympic Volleyball Championship, but they serve the purpose to link both beach and indoor and men and women. Volleyball is a sport where fans seem to feel very similarly across the subteams and the additional navigability will possibly be helpful. I created the template today and am posting here to generate a discussion. I am hoping that there is not consensus to delete. I have also created 1996 and 2012 templates, but have not employed them on any pages yet. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Volleyball_templates, the only response (by Courcelles (talk · contribs)) said "team sports should be navboxed by team, sports that are largely individual are best served by putting the entire national team in one navbox", but there is no consensus.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 11 August 2012 (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) 21:11, 26 August 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:Syberia

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) 01:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need to have a navbox for two articles that are already wikilinked. MSJapan (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Who thought this was a good idea? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:10, 26 August 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:US states and territories

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, but I will move it to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States in case anyone wants to use it in project/portal space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US states and territories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates {{United States political divisions}} in graphical format without the specificity of differentiating between states, the federal district or the territories. It also separates the country in regions differently than most classifications I've seen used, which copy the Census Bureau. See File:Census Regions and Division of the United States.svg for the classifications, which use the Northeast, Southeast, West and Midwest as the four main classifications, only separate Mountain and Pacific when also breaking the other three regions into a total of nine divisions. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - {{United States political divisions}} handles the need in a cleaner format. Dough 48 72 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This template gives users a graphical alternative to Template:United States political divisions. This graphical template is very useful for users not familiar with the geography of the United States and especially younger users. It is also useful for regional perusal of the United States. Yours aye, Buaidh 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
delete pointlessly decorative and confusing alternative to {{United States political divisions}}. I'm not very familiar with the geography of the US; the last time I was there was a decade a go. So I certainly can't identify most states by their location or abbreviations, and I would think that is true of 90% of the readers of WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template uses the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two letter code for each of the states, district, and territories of the United States. This code is universally used in the United States and by the Universal Postal Union. My six-year-old granddaughter has no trouble using this template. Perhaps she can give John a hand. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used in the USA ≠ 'universally used'. WP is for all who can use and understand English, not just those in the US.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was "universally used in the United States", as in scope of use, not geography. If you have so little knowledge of the United States, then why are you so keen to delete this template. You seem more intent upon asserting your indignation than solving any problem. Yours aye, Buaidh 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 27#Template:US Census Labeled Map.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template above has been in continuous use for five and one half years. I've updated the background map of both these templates in response to the criticism of User:Imzadi1979. There are no rigorous definitions for the various regions of the United States other than the six New England states.

I feel WikiProject United States and the individual U.S. state WikiProjects should have the freedom to use these templates if they so elect. Yours aye, Buaidh 14:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prohibit its use in article space. It had escaped my attention that this map of postal code abbreviations was being used in all(?) of the articles for U.S. states. Based on edits I've seen wherein users assiduously replaced state names with the two-letter abbreviations, I have concluded that there are way too many people around Wikipedia who think that these abbreviations are more official than the actual names of the states. Continuing to display this map in article space doesn't help disabuse them of that notion. However, for the benefit of Wikipedians who aren't familiar with these abbreviations, it would be useful to keep this around for use by Wikiprojects. FWIW, a lot of Americans get confused by codes like AR (Arkansas, not Arizona), AK (Alaska, not Arkansas), MA (Massachusetts, not Maryland), MI (Michigan, not Missouri or Mississippi), and MS (Mississippi, not Massachusetts or Missouri). --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Dough4872, {{United States political divisions}} is cleaner and easier to read, and does not handicap those who do not know the state's abbreviation. I do not know if it is viable as a crib sheet (per Orlady) for List of U.S. state abbreviations, or if another templates exists that already lists the abbreviations, with or without the map. Thundersnow (talk) 10:51, 1 September 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.