Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Peninsula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

we already have a redirect, {{infobox peninsula}}, since {{infobox islands}} serves the purpose of describing a peninsula. if there are missing parameters, we can add them to that template. this template is basically a cut-and-paste fork of {{infobox islands}} (for the main structure) and {{infobox settlement}} (for the divisions, area, coordinates, and location maps). note that there is also {{infobox cape}} (one of the articles using this template is actually a cape). Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 1 November 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) 02:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that is not widely and can/is be substituted by a wikitable. Group A template was deleted earlier in January here, others should have been nominated then as well. NapHit (talk) 17:02, 21 October 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) 02:51, 1 November 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:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group A standings

[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 no consensus to delete at this point in time, but there could be consensus after the group states finish. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group C standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group D standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group E standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group F standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group G standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group H standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should be substituted with wikitables and deleted, as they are not required. Once the group stages is finished in December, these templates will be redundant, so the data should be substituted into a wikitable and then the templates deleted. NapHit (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but as they are only going to be updated another three times its rather pointless to keep them until December when they are redundant anyway. People updated previous season articles without these templates before, I'm sure they can continue to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I created them I thought that it was used in 6 article (4 team season page, 2012-13 CL page and 2012-13 CL group phase), but someone doesn't want to put them on the season pages. Stigni (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The whole purpose of a template like this is to cut down the number of edits needed. Instead of doing the 6 edits, it can be reduced to 1 edit by using the template. Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're mostly exclusively used on 2012–13 UEFA Champions League and 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage they're pointless. Some of the clubs don't even have season pages and forcing others to use this template has no purpose. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait until they are redundant? They are going to be redundant, they shouldn't be kept just because it is slightly quicker to update information. They should be substituted by tables, which is what has happened for previous seasons and there was no problem updating info then. NapHit (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wait because there are value to these templates. Kingjeff (talk) 16:07, 27 October 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) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template is error prone. Case in point it is showing Porto a guaranteed spot when in fact they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.2 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 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) 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chemical engineering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a substantial duplication of the template {{Chemical engg}}, and should have been speedy deleted according to criterion T3. However, a user stopped speedy deletion, claiming that (a) it is used on several pages, and (b) WP:SIDEBAR allows a sidebar template in addition to a navbox. I don't think the intent of WP:SIDEBAR is that a sidebar should offer essentially the same as a navbox on the same page. Also, WP:SIDEBAR says that "tangential information should be kept out of sidebars;" but this template is huge. On some pages the sidebar/navbox combination take up more space than the content (see Chemical process modeling). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:29, 20 October 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) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Taken as granted that H Padleckas (talk) has been involved in editing both navigation bars... as long as he takes the burden not to just think but also to completely rewrite a unified code for both templates (which is going to be very VERY time-consuming) ... well then let's go for it... IMHO he is ultimately the one more qualified to decide on the matter. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still busy studying how re-organize both of these templates and making notes on the Template Talk page. I think they can use an overhaul. A decision should wait until I re-organize them. H Padleckas (talk) 06:58, 12 November 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.