Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1

[edit]
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, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Equatorial Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Place with just 5400 inhabitants are no cities Night of the Big Wind talk 20:36, 1 May 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.
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) 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Lesotho (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Place with just 5400 inhabitants are no cities. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:36, 1 May 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.
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) 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Swaziland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable sources. Places of 3400 people are no cities. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:26, 1 May 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.
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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

only used in one user's userspace, should be userfied. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 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.
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 Speedy delete per G7. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RefimproveMED (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Articles needing attention for MEDRS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:All articles needing attention for MEDRS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{medref}}. It had three transclusions, which I've already replaced. It does the same thing as Medref, except uses different categories and doesn't have a parameter for use in sections. — Bility (talk) 16:40, 1 May 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.
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) 04:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Award3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Award2}} and {{Bsbox}}. mabdul 00:57, 1 May 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.
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) 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-laundry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is the vague form of {{Cleanup-list}}. Both do the same thing. Fleet Command (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, there was extensive discussion on Template talk:Cleanup-laundry about this very issue. Where FleetCommand says it does the same thing as {{Cleanup-list}}, I think they should do different things, so IMHO neither deletion nor merging is merited. Until recently, this template used the term "notable" wrongly (referring to items in a list - WP:N forbids such an application) and an non-policy term "unhelpful". So they were removed, but improvement was not followed through, because nobody would discuss it. Now that you two are interested, will you please read Template talk:Cleanup-laundry, or should I just replicate that discussion here? As I stated there, "this template's goals, text, instructions for use, and application by editors are not harmonized." The same is true for Cleanup-list, by the way. Nobody knows what either of them are really for, given how scattered and improperly used they are. --Lexein (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone is willing to discuss and make it clear what the template is used for. I find this all the time. No one wants to ever discuss something, or if they do, it just goes around in circles because everyone expects everyone else to do something. I saw this with the Halifax, Nova Scotia debacle. It basically turned out like this. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete. So far there has been no assertion (let alone evidence) that the articles so tagged are not in need of work, merely a claim that the use of this template is similar to another. While a merge could be possible, we need more not less distinction in describing what needs work; this is specific claim that the list is badly defined, as opposed to any type of formatting or other problem. RJFJR (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete, it would be far better to define "encyclopedic". IMO, the second sentence (instructions to improve the articles) is the most important part of a banner. The {{cleanup-laundry}} gives specific instructions to remove the list, incorporating the useful parts into the text of the article. The {{cleanup-list}} has a vague instruction to cleanup the list. SwineFlew? (talk) 19:30, 27 April 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) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant. mabdul 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I would differentiate this template's (original) purpose as being obscurity/lack-of-any-significance-to-understanding-the-general-topic-of-the-article of information (i.e. lack of 'noteworthiness', a term which I generally use as the material-level analog of "notability"), as opposed to verifiability or (a narrow definition of) indisciminateness. A rather more broad and robust definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE might obviate the necessity of this template, but until then I think there is a place for it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly vague. If someone thinks that there are problems with entries in a list then they should tag the specific entries. If they can't be bothered to do that then they shouldn't start a guessing game instead. Warden (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same argument could be applied to any section banner-tag in favour of inline tagging. It thus amounts to a fallacious special pleading. Where a problem applies to a list as a whole, it is better to tag the list as a whole (and such material does appear, with near inevitability, to gravitate to such a list). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, I'd suggest merging {{List}} with {{Prose}}; those two seen redundant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:25, 12 May 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.
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) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 All-Ireland Under-21 Hurling Runners-up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Surely we don't need a navbox for an under-21 runners-up side. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 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) 00:12, 1 May 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.