Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

Template:University of Illinois All-Century 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University of Illinois All-Century Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - First, WP:CBBALL doesn't use navboxes for team-specific awards or retired jerseys (and if they exist, they should be deleted, too). Secondly, WP:NENAN. Lastly, this is information better served by inclusion in an infobox or in prose, not as a navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Navbox clutter. Reso lute 19:44, 23 February 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:User young child

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. Already removed by OS. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User young child (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is no reason why a young editor should put a userbox stating they are a young child (currently this says "<11") per WP:CHILD and WP:GFYA. It's at best endangering their privacy, often says no more than what is obvious from the user's behavior, and usually we RevDel/OS a minor's self-outing edits (especially one below eleven years of age). /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect When used the edit must be suppressed as self-disclosure as a minor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:45, 22 February 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:Supreme Alphabet

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) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supreme Alphabet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed - superseded by list at Supreme Alphabet. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...not needed.--MONGO 03:33, 23 February 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:Suuip

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) 21:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 22 February 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:White Collar cast

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) 21:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Collar cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary. and not used on any pages. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:53, 12 February 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) 03:45, 22 February 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:Needquocngu

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) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{needvietnamese}}. AFAIK, the Quốc ngữ writing system is used only for Vietnamese, and vice versa. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose that's wrong. Chu Nom and Han Tu are also used on some articles connected to Vietnam, or are needed for those articles. {{needvietnamese}} makes no distinction to which is needed, while {{needquocngu}} specifically says which script is needed. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I see. I will close this discussion once documentation is added to this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
- No, actually, I stand by my original argument. The {{needvietnamese}} template should suffice, as the quốc ngữ alphabet is what is assumed nowadays when Vietnamese text is called for (as it is the modern and current Vietnamese alphabet). If chữ nôm text is desired, the template {{needchunom}} could be used. But, IMHO, the {{needvietnamese}} template is clearer to those who may not know the name quốc ngữ, and does not suffer from the ambiguity you mention. (Perhaps a mention of quốc ngữ could be added to {{needvietnamese}}.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wouldn't if an article has Chu Nom but does not have Quoc Ngu, that article would already have Vietnamese, but be missing Quoc Ngu script. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I am saying is, we should repurpose {{needvietnamese}} to specifically mention quốc ngữ. Then we don't need this template anymore. We can then use {{needchunom}} in the few cases when that script is desired, and {{needvietnamese}} in all other cases. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - {{needquocngu}} is the more specific name, since it specifies exactly which script is needed. Since this accurately and precisely describes what is needed, it should be kept. {{needvietnamese}} even if repurposed to be Quoc Ngu, would not be precisely named. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Vietnamese" implies alphabetic script. The {{needchunom}} template is an orphan. Pre-1920, classical Chinese was official, never nôm. So there are very few articles where the nôm issue comes up: Chữ Nôm and Tale of Kiều. But that's about it. Kauffner (talk) 13:30, 20 February 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) 03:35, 22 February 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:Indiatopics

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) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary duplicate template. We have a comprehensive one already at {{India topics}}, and maintaining two is just not necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello,Some of the pages related to India are so long that navigation becomes somewhat tough when one is at the near top of the article(one need to come to top end of the article for navigation from the first template).Instead this template at the helps for this.and regarding maintenance i assure that i will be responsible for maintenance.so please i request you not to delete the template considering the ease of navigation and all other factors.thank you - SunilShamnur talk 06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate your effort in creating this template. But since it is a duplicate of the already existing template {{India topics}}which is quite comprehensive enough, I do not think it should stay. We should rather have a [show/hide] option in {{India topics}} for each of the headings in it (history, government, politics, etc). Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 08:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it should be the editors' choice between a sidebar and a footer template. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:53, 26 January 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) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{India topics}} is gargantuan and shouls definitely be split up. I'm not opposed to duplication between a navbox and a sidebar, but it should really be discussed before being rolled out. And the national colours presently being used on the sidebar make it hideously distracting, so if it's going to be kept then it should definitely have the colours stripped. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:02, 14 February 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) 03:28, 22 February 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:Social psychology in textual context

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) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social psychology in textual context (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unused hodge-podge of many different articles and expandable sections. It's next to unusable in its current state. What shall we do with it? Split it up, slim it down, or delete? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 14 February 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) 02:24, 22 February 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:Infobox mobile suit

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) 23:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox mobile suit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purely in-universe content, used solely on articles which are themselves purely in-universe content. {{Infobox fictional artifact}} should be adequate if an infobox is really necessary on these articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the issue is the number of in-universe fields, that should be discussed for which fields should be removed. If the issue is that the aritcles that the template appears on are "purely in-universe", then the articles should be either fixed or merged into their respective lists. However, the infobox has a decent mix of in-universe and real life information. Also, {{Infobox fictional artifact}} is not a good replacement for this templates because other than the "creator" and "first appearance" fields, none of the other fields match up and simply don't apply. I'll also note that as a major contributor to this template, I was not notified nor were the relevant WikiProjects notified either. —Farix (t | c) 03:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the "creator" and "first appearance" attributes are the only real-world statistics covered by the template; the rest is in-universe trivia. That the articles which use this template need cleaned up is intertwined with the rationale for deleting this template, but it is certainly not a prerequisite. Indeed, the deletion of the template would go some way to highlighting quite how little real-world material these articles contain, as the presence of an infobox confers an artificial authority on the trivia contained within. As for not being notified, I use Twinkle to nominate XfDs and I believe it only notifies the template author. The {{tfd}} banner is supposed to serve as adequate notice for other interested parties, and I don't believe there was anything untoward about assuming that would work here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{infobox fictional artifact}} seems to be solely focused on TV shows, with a fig-leaf for non-TV subjects. As fictional artifacts occur in things other than TV shows, or could originate elsewhere, and are used elsewhere, this seems somewhat poorly built. It seems as though it should be renamed to a TV specific name, and another template built for non-TV subjects, or more-than-TV subjects. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 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) 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is used on a number of articles. [1] It contains information which another infobox does not. If those knowledgeable in this series, and who have worked on these articles, believe this infobox is better for their usage than another one, then so be it. Dream Focus 01:39, 4 March 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:Wikiversity3

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, then delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiversity3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely used and unnecessary fork of {{wikiversity}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:45, 6 February 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) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete - The functionality can be moved to {{wikiversity}} with optional parameters for those few articles that use wikiversity3's functionality. --Selket ^Talk 15:45, 3 March 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.