Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

Template:All-Ireland Senior Football Champions

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) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-Ireland Senior Football Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

2001 is a random and not notable year to use . Gnevin (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2013 (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:Rail start

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as

   {{s-start}}
   {{s-rail|title=National Rail}}

Not immediately obvious why this is called 'Rail start' but is only for the National Rail, either. — Lfdder (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's part of a series having a consistent style, see Template:Rail start#See also. The style of this series is subtly different from that of {{s-start}}, and mixing the two does not produce satisfactory results, particularly in the cell borders. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- s-start/s-rail seems to satisfy everyone outside of the UK. Does "does not produce satisfactory results" mean "I don't like how it looks"? — Lfdder (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone wondering, here are the two, side by side. Let's play spot the difference.

Preceding station	National Rail		Following station
Chartham		Southeastern Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) line	Sturry
Ashford International		Southeastern High Speed 1 London-Margate	Ramsgate
	Disused railways
Terminus		British Rail Southern Region Canterbury and Whitstable Railway	Whitstable Harbour
Terminus		Southern Railway Elham Valley Railway	Canterbury South

Preceding station		National Rail	Following station
Chartham		Southeastern Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) line	Sturry
Ashford International		Southeastern High Speed 1 London-Margate	Ramsgate
	Disused railways
Terminus		British Rail Southern Region Canterbury and Whitstable Railway	Whitstable Harbour
Terminus		Southern Railway Elham Valley Railway	Canterbury South

Also, here it is with {{s-rail}} for Disused Railways; you get 'Preceding' and 'Following station' in the header again (which isn't really reason for forking s-rail, I think):

Preceding station	National Rail	Following station
Chartham	Southeastern Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) line	Sturry
Ashford International	Southeastern High Speed 1 London-Margate	Ramsgate
Preceding station	Disused railways	Following station
Terminus	British Rail Southern Region Canterbury and Whitstable Railway	Whitstable Harbour
Terminus	Southern Railway Elham Valley Railway	Canterbury South

— Lfdder (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- And, for anyone wondering, the only differences are that you get a slightly darker border below the header (could be changed in s-rail) and the font is slightly smaller (like with every other of these boxes). — Lfdder (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK... I read your {{s-start}} and took it as {{s-rail-start}}, which is often used outside the UK. It's occasionally used inside the UK too, and that certainly shows a difference, such as at Wakefield Kirkgate railway station where the last three rows (from Pontefract Monkhill down) exhibit double-thickness borders. You won't see the effect on all browsers, because browsers differ in how the border-collapse property is interpreted.

This is what {{rail start}} generates:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 0.5em auto; text-align: center;"
|-
! Preceding station
! colspan="3" |[[National Rail]]
! Following station

This is what {{s-start}} followed by {{s-rail|title=National Rail}} generates:

{| class="wikitable succession-box" style="margin:0.5em auto; font-size:95%;clear:both;"
|-
! style="vertical-align: middle; width: 30%; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; border-right: 1px #aaa solid; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; color:inherit; background-color:#f2f2f2; white-space:nowrap"{{!}}'''Preceding station'''
! style="border-left: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; background-color:#"| 
! style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; border-left: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; background-color:#"|[[National Rail]]
! style="border-left: 0px none; border-right: 0px none; border-bottom: 0px none; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; background-color:#"| 
! style="vertical-align: middle; width: 30%; border-top: 1px #aaa solid; border-left: 1px #aaa solid; border-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; color:inherit; background-color:#f2f2f2; white-space:nowrap"{{!}}'''Following station'''
|-

But why take an efficient template, which does the job it's designed for, and replace it with something that is less efficient? Not to mention that {{s-rail}} contains at least two coding errors, plus some redundancy. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coding errors and redundancy in s-rail can be fixed. Bottom line is, we don't need two of these templates. s-rail is more encompassing, which is why I'm suggesting we delete this one. — Lfdder (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would additional complexity into article writing. This proposal would mean, when creating a route box, instead of starting

    {{rail start}}
    {{rail line ...}}

You would have to write

   {{s-start}}
   {{s-rail|title=National Rail}}
   {{rail line ...}}

How's a newbie going to get that? Edgepedia (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This is what they've got to do if they want to make one of these boxes for any other rail network, anyway. How are they gonna get it? I don't know, from reading the instructions? This is isn't any more difficult than infoboxes, say. — Lfdder (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could create better redirects to help, e.g. rail start could point to s-start and rail network or rail header to s-rail, compare:

   {{rail start}}
   {{rail line ...}}

   {{rail start}}
   {{rail network ...}}
   {{rail line ...}}

— Lfdder (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is different, and frankly the s-rail has always looked ugly. For no good reason the next/preceding shows up bigger than the title, which would presumably be the most important bit? This DR is just a waste of time which could be better spent improving the articles which use {{rail start}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's forcing you to participate if you think it's a waste of time. Like I've said above, issues with s-rail can be ironed out. — Lfdder (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, I don't think there's any salvaging the s-rail-start/s-rail/s-line class of templates. Fuck it. I'll add the succesion-box class to this one though so that they'll look uniform. — Lfdder (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No obvious reason to delete. And wouldn't this create unnecessary work in replacing the existing templates? G-13114 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That could've easily been taken care of by a bot. — Lfdder (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (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 BoysBrigade

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) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2013 (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 Asterix

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) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant to {{infobox graphic novel}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2013 (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 aspect

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 since it is unused, and has been unused for some time. Let me know if you want it restored for development. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere it could be used/be useful? — Lfdder (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator: I made this way back for use in articles about grammatical aspects, together with Template:Aspect line and the images in commons:Category:Grammatical aspect icons. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable (e.g. from WP:LING) would make use of this template, but if it is deleted, Template:Aspect line and the images should probably be deleted as well. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (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 Artist-run space

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, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Artist-run space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be a fork of Template:Infobox organization used on two articles, with no specialized parameters. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement with {{infobox cooperative}} or {{infobox organization}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (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.