Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 12

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) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theatrical Marvel Comics films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost identical to

Agree, it is identical except it bizarrely places an emphasis on the distributor/studio. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a slightly more specific, much less useful version of

• Delete, redundant and weird, as noted by DWB. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant.--
  WP:FOUR) 02:47, 19 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.

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) 23:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox locomotive service history auto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused fork of template:Infobox locomotive. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 12 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.

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 per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

sandbox code which belongs in the sole transcluder's userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because when I created it I did not intend for it to stay. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 20:47, 12 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.

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) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Totd-random-noborder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

trivial fork of {{totd-random}} which is massively out of sync with the parent. Only used on two user pages. A noborder attribute could be trivially added to the original. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:23, 13 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.

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) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single-use data table. Substitute on the single transclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:24, 13 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.

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, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Storm path (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivial image wrapper which only complicates the transclusion of a single image on an article. Simply calling the image directly results in simpler syntax, a quicker code path and less complexity for editors to learn. Substitute it on the existing transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it makes things easier, why delete it, not everything needs top be deleted.

Keep per Y, unless it would be replaced by something simpler, yet similar. Zonafan39 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is used (which, ironically, is how I learned of this TfD). Editors may call images bare at present without the need to delete this template. --Nouniquenames 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, as unnecessary obfuscation. no need for a wrapper when simple image syntax works just fine here, and is really no more or less complicated to use. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment what is "capition=" supposed to do? looks like this is broken? Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's a broken attempt at a caption. As for the keep comments, the difference between {{storm path|Frances 2004 track.png}} and [[file:Frances 2004 track.png|thumb|left|Storm path]] is that everyone knows how to use the latter, while the former requires template knowledge or dumb copy-pasting from other articles, and that's the simplest example possible. To get a right-aligned template with a caption and size using this template, you'd need to use {{storm path|Frances 2004 track.png|right|400px|capiton=A caption}} instead of [[file:Frances 2004 track.png|thumb|400px|a caption]]. On average, this results in more code, more maintenance and slower page loads for zero gain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except WPTC never even uses the caption field.
      ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete - per nom. I also dont think several of the users of WPTC were aware that you could add a caption by adding caption=.Jason Rees (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since that's a coinvenient way of tracking down articles missing the track map file by doing a simple catscan of the cyclone articles' categories without the template. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete Avengingbandit 18:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others.
  (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Wikicode should not be gratuitously replaced with templates. It really amounts to an alternative standard, which is very undesirable. If there's a need to keep track of storm articles that lack images, it can be done without this type of measure. Peter ^Isotalo 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we should delete infoboxes?
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Infoxboxes are complicated pieces of code though - unlike this template.Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infoboxes can't be generated with a roughly equal amount of pure wikicode. Not so with this example. That means it's basically an alternative type of wikicode specific to storm articles. And I'm assuming that it's quite easy for experienced storm article editors to simply use normal image syntax while it's a lot more difficult for newbies to keep track of two separate types of image code. Peter ^Isotalo 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. United States Man (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matthiasb. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Simplicity is good. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matthiasb. Looking at where it is transcluded will tell you which articles have storm paths in them, something which simple image syntax will not do. Sure, you could manually add a category with image syntax, but that defeats the purpose of simplicity. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:14, 21 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.

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) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SOPA Defcon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused boilerplate which mistakes Wikipedia for a weather service. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally unnesscesary.Graham1973 (talk) 12:53, 15 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.

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.

Template:BS-ÜWjunctions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BSicon-hubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Data templates which appear to have been copied from de-WP. These are in the wrong namespace: if they are still desired they should be moved under Wikipedia:Route diagram template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: both have multiple uses in
  WP:RDT/C (and AFAIK, were copied by de-WP, not the other way around). Useddenim (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't mind them being kept, but they belong in projectspace. They are not general-use templates: they are documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Move to project space? Sure, sounds logical. Why is this being proposed as a deletion instead of a renaming, then? Typical admin bullying, maybe? And why only these two and not the whole lot? Typical admin sloppiness? And why is is said that it was copied from de-WP (is that a crime?) when editing history points to the very opposite? Typical admin clumsiness? Yawn… Tuvalkin (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is a cross-namespace move request it belongs as TfD. It has an umlaut in it, which explains my presumption. Taking the additional assumption that you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, I'd advise you to treat future nominations in good faith without making uncalled-for personal attacks. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:43, 12 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.

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 Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungR Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-anleitungR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused utility template presumably copied from de-WP and abandoned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: part of the
  WP:RDT/C cataloging project, but currently unused, as roads are of a lower priority, and mach rationalizing still needs to be done to make their naming consistent. Useddenim (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If it's to be kept, it should be moved into projectspace. it is not a general-use template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 12 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.

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) 23:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algerians infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and broken. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, "Algerian people" is a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 14 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.

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) 23:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-protect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per

Yes, but it would still be a useful template as a word of warning Marcus. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Urgh. Absolutely not. One of the reasons we state that these issues should be taken to ArbCom is because of how serious they are. A warning template is absolutely not appropriate, and in the worst case (being wrongly used) would be one of the most grievous attacks possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely and without doubt. I really cannot imagine any situation in which it would be appropriate to use this template. If the suspicion is not justified then posting such a message could be libel, and if it is justified then more serious action needs to be taken than issuing such a warning. Indeed, posting a warning could actually be counter-productive, as it could warn the user that their actions have been noticed.
  talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment As far as I can see, this template has never been used. Certainly there are no transclusions for it, and searching through several dozen talk page edits by the creator of the template, I cannot find any case where he used it. (He has now retired from Wikipedia.)
  talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment is there a more generalized version of this that doesn't apply specifically to children?
  WP:NOT a dating service / social club - type warning template? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Do not hit on other editors" and "do not groom minor editors" are not the same thing. Urgh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said that it was, I don't even see how you could think I said that, since I specifically said that it wasn't. So, is there a template for WP:NOT a social club? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cannot "generalise" this template into a generic WP:NOTSOCIAL warning as that isn't what it's for in the first place. So this whole thread is off topic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not reason to draw this out. _{Per Marcus.} Theopolisme 21:17, 19 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.

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, now merged with both wide image and panorama. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RTL scroll (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have asked for a parameter to be added to {{wide image}}, which will allow for a right to left scroll. once this is added, we won't need this template. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as I can see it's only used on a single project page anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was being used in one article before I replaced it. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; we'll need to keep it around until {{wide image}} has been updated -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this functionality is now in {{panorama}}, and I have made an edit request to add it to {{wide image}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 14 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.