Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 20

< November 19	November 21 >

November 20

Template:Harvesternavi

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) 03:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. No compelling reason users would want to navigate amongst DBs incorporated into Bioinformatic Harvester (BH) 2. The template is out of scope on each page - each article in the template has no relation with BH - spam 3. Equivalent to having a google (and every search engine) nav box on every website article 4. better as a list on the BH article (correct place), and/or a category Widefox (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a data point from Bioinformatic Harvester. The actual databases themselves are not notably associated with BH such that one would particularly want or need to navigate by that link. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 21 November 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:Atlanta ferries

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) 03:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlanta ferries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but two of the links on this page are perpetual redlinks, having been so since at least as early as 2005. The rest are covered in the article

T

22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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:HSV Hoek squad

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) 03:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HSV Hoek squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad template about a tiny team from the amateur

Hoofdklasse league (level 4, two below professionalism). Angelo (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. I don't think the status of the team/league should be the issue but the number of red v blue links. At present, only about a third of the names are blue links. I'm not sure if this is generally regarded as enough to keep? Eldumpo (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the squad listed there is from the old 2010-11 season, when the club played Topklasse (one level above, they were relegated at the end of the season). --Angelo (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that the squad list is out of date and that some of the blue-linked players are no longer with the club then perhaps the template should be deleted. Eldumpo (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those players is still part of the HSV Hoek squad. [1] I have updated all the articles. --Angelo (talk) 12:26, 29 November 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:SM Hypermarket Branches

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. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SM Hypermarket Branches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The individual branches of this chain of stores are not notable, and therefore there is no purpose for this template; they merely need to be listed once in the article,

SM Hypermarket DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom.

T

22:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete would not expect individual stores to be listed; the template doesn't seem to be formatting properly anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 13:46, 21 November 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:Silverwing

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) 03:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Five articles now that the episode list has been merged. Kind of on the borderline for usefulness now Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:02, 12 November 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) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It does bring together articles about the book series plus other media. But let's not call it useless just because it is small. (The template does require attention as to layout; all that blank space doesn't look good.) — Senator2029║talk 17:58, 29 November 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:Empire Award for Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy

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) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire Award for Best Thriller (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This award have only been created in 2006, it's to young for be notable. It should be deleted, or merged with Template:Empire Awards.--Hyliad (d) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (TTC)

Keep. It is notable. The awards date from 1996; this specific category was added in 2006.
This UK magazine circulates internationally; it is readily available here in Toronto. Varlaam (talk) 17:57, 25 November 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:Empire Award for Best Thriller

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) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire Award for Best Thriller (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This award have only been created in 2006, it's to young for be notable. It should be deleted, or merged with Template:Empire Awards.--Hyliad (d) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (TTC)

Keep. As above. Varlaam (talk) 17:58, 25 November 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:Empire Award for Best Horror

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) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire Award for Best Horror (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This award have only been created in 2006, it's to young for be notable. It should be deleted, or merged with Template:Empire Awards.--Hyliad (d) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (TTC)

Keep. As above. Varlaam (talk) 17:58, 25 November 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:Empire Award for Best Comedy

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) 03:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire Award for Best Comedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This award have only been created in 2006, it's to young for be notable. It should be deleted, or merged with Template:Empire Awards.--Hyliad (d) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (TTC)

Keep. As above. Varlaam (talk) 17:59, 25 November 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:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant/about

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) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant/about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused single-use hatnote template. I can foresee no future use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
T
19:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Free-media only

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) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free-media only (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2007. Unused; appears to be a failed proposal. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
T
19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Football in Achaia, Greece

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) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football in Achaia, Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely redlinked. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused, out of date template Eldumpo (talk) 11:45, 24 November 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:For loop 6

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) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For loop 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose not clear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
T
19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Filthcast

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) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no article Filthcast (it seems to be the name of a podcast). Unused. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context, and no usage.
T
18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Final team

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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused template, not sure what it is supposzed to be for. Eldumpo (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a graphic of players in a Rugby Union team - see Rugby union positions - but is far too specific to be useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.
T
18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Fife Flyers roster

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) 03:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fife Flyers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incomplete roster; correct roster is at Fife_Flyers#2011-2012_Roster. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 20 November 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:Fibre sidebar

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) 03:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fibre sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused vertical sidebar. A horizontal version exists at Template:Fibers. No reason for the two to co-exist, especially if this one is unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. I created it as I thought it'd be useful but clearly not enough people are interested in a fascinating topic such as fibre. If the consensus is to get rid of it, can I ask that it be userfied as it was my first "Series" sidebar and the code will come in handy when I make others. Thank you. Claret Ash 11:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it should be user preference when writing articles as to use a sidebar or footer. Just add a switch to the footer to choose sidebar or footer, and integrate this there. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sidebar should never have been unused. I've checked back through my contribs. I began to add the template to articles but stopped to deal with other things and never got back to it. (I was off WP for a while). As the purpose of the sidebar is to emphasise that the constituent articles are in a series, my intention was to put the sidebar on primary articles in the series and leave the navbar for the basic articles. Several of the constituent articles lack infoboxes and the like and I think a sidebar will enhance those articles where a navbar would only be lost at the bottom. I've since re-added the template to various articles. If the consensus at the various articles allows the sidebar to remain, could that be considered consensus here also? Claret Ash 09:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A series? Really? I can sort of understand that different fibres are of a sufficiently similar category that one might want a navbox to navigate between them, but that's hardly sufficient to warrant calling that a series of articles. Considering that this duplicates {{fibers}} and is both unused and very recent by comparison I don't think we need to keep it. No prejudice on userfying if Claret does indeed want to work on turning this into a series sidebar, though as I say I don't really think there's enough to say on the subject to warrant calling it a "series". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, a series. Really. There are several articles (as well as a couple of potential articles) that can be developed to help explain an aspect of human culture that has played so great a part in our history, from basic clothing through to the industrial revolution. If nothing else, it should encourage a little more interest in a not so small collection of articles that, surprisingly, are still quite a ways from being FA status. As for the duplication, there is ample precedent for dual navbar/sidebar sets. This has been explained better in the template's documentation. Both templates are now in use as I'd originally intended. I apologise for the delay in rolling out this template. Claret Ash 12:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is important to note the distinction between "Wikipedia does not prohibit the existence of both a sidebar and a navbox on the same subject" and "editors are encouraged to create duplicate sidebars for anything we have navboxes for". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Personally, I prefer sidebars as they make an interesting accompaniment to an article, like a side dish with a main meal. Navbars are an afterthought, dumped down the bottom due to failing inspiration, like a
        WP:GALLERY
        . I'd rather see an article with sidebars and infoboxes than one with an ugly clump of navbars cluttering up teh bottom. If the argument is to remove one of the duplicates, why not remove the navbar?
Delete as redundant and distracting. Just removed it from mineral. The footer template is adequate and "out of the way" of article content. In addition the "-re" spelling used makes it rather odd as on the fiber article. I don't care which spelling is used, but a fibre sidebar on the fiber article ... Vsmith (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've altered the spelling to the predominant version. (Incidentally, you might like to consider that some of us find the American spelling distracting.) I agree with you about Mineral. I've corrected the links to accomodate. Hope this helps. Claret Ash 12:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ten days now and at least one of the reasons for the nom is now redundant, plus there's obviously no consensus. Does anyone else have anything to add to this discussion? Claret Ash 22:36, 29 November 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:Fb –

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) 03:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb – (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An en-rule template with an en-rule in the title. Almost

WP:G2. Not very useful. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Delete what a useless template. Replicates the use of {{
ndash}} 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've sent it for CSD T3. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up that T3 - you put {{db-t3|ndash}} but you should have put {{db-t3|~~~~~|ndash}} - the first parameter must be the date & time, it's the second which is the name of the duplicate. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It didn't work like one would expect (unlike how db-a10 works). 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have processed the CSD... it's been over a week. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a general problem with {{db-t3}}, so have raised a thread at Template talk:Db-meta#Not categorising transclusions. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now showing in Category:Templates for speedy deletion, Category:Duplicate or hardcoded templates awaiting deletion, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as well as Category:Templates for deletion which is because of the TFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 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.