Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23[edit]

Template:Service awards/year[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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Service awards/year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Service awards/year/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Service awards/year/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete I have edited the {{Service awards}} template so that it no longer requires the /year template. There are now no transclusions of this template, so there is no reason to keep it. If /year is deleted, its /sandbox and /doc pages should also be deleted. The template's original author has not been notified of this discussion, as they are indefinitely-blocked. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it is not longer needed. mabdul 10:12, 24 February 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:Be bold[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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Be bold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is pointless. "Be bold" applies to all pages on Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obvious use case for this template, and as such it's basically just more unnecessary talk page boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed since WP:BOLD applies everywhere. This was slapped on an ARTICLE, and I removed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, looks neat, but totally useless. Delete. mabdul 10:14, 24 February 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:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad[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 Keep. I am withdrawing. Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 11:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is improper. Not used anywhere. Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's used at Independiente Medellín, as well it should be: squad navboxes are a perfectly normal aspect of football club articles. It needs fixed, and the colours changed to something less eye-bleeding, but there is nothing "improper" about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added nonincludes for the documentation and transcluded the template to the other 5 articles named in the template. mabdul 10:53, 24 February 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:Uw-dontremovewarnings[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 delete. Speedy delete as misrepresentation of policy, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: This template is contrary to the guideline, WP:OWNTALK, that users may remove almost all warnings from their own user talk pages. The items that may not be removed is listed at WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. —teb728 t c 07:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Note: When I went to notify the template creator, I found they are indef blocked. —teb728 t c 07:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete created by a banned user. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arguably a speedy deletion candidate under WP:T2: unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. Robofish (talk) 12:41, 23 February 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:Sustainable energy[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sustainable energy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. The topic is adequately covered by ~~Template:Renewable energy~~ Template:Renewable energy sources. Note that renewable energy is by definition sustainable energy. The topic is also a bit "messy" to be constrained by a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Template is redundant. - Jorgath (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query -- Template:Renewable energy seems to redirect to Template:Sustainable energy, so the topic wouldn't be covered by the former if the latter were deleted..? 213.246.121.83 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. Unless the nominator has made a typo, this appears to be a mistaken nomination of a template as redundant to... itself, via a redirect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Invalid reason for deletion as explained by Chris. No prejudice against renomination if a suitable reason is found. – Allen4names 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. It is redundant to Template:Renewable energy sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a more informative template than Renewable energy. If one has to be deleted, delete Renewable instead.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is less informative since it does not truly represent a complex topic. Template:Renewable energy sources is what a template should be - short and succinct. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, we have no clear guidelines on exactly how broadly sidebar templates should link. Thanks for the correction to the nom: my opinion is that it is preferable to merge {{renewable energy sources}} to {{sustainable energy}} (as the latter term is technically a superset of the former) and to start a discussion on the merged template talk regarding the removal of material deemed superfluous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that the discussion at Talk:Renewable_energy (RFC: Which navbox to use?) and arguments presented there are relevant for this discussion. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a more informative and provides better coverage than Renewable energy. Additionally the Renewable energy template is non-standard, and is out of place in Wikipedia. Delete Renewable energy instead. LK (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Template:Sustainable energy is more "non-standard". I like the idea of consistent templates but is being "non-standard" a reason for deletion? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you state with a straight face that Template:Renewable energy sources is more standard? AFAIK, there is no other navigation sidebar on Wikipedia that looks like it. OTOH, there are numerous sidebars that look like Template:Sustainable energy, just to name a few of the A's we have Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Agriculture, Template:Acids and bases, Template:Anime and manga, Template:Anglicanism, Template:Austrian School sidebar, Template:American cuisine. There are literally hundreds more. Most use Template:Sidebar as a base. LK (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebars might not have become universally template-based like navboxes and infoboxes, but they're getting there. There should certainly be a good reason for current examples not to be based on {{sidebar}}. Nevertheless, the main problem here is the redundancy fo two sidebar templates covering the same area with <100 transclusions between them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be a huge support at the main discussion for the renewable energy template, with better rationales. The main discussion is at Talk:Renewable energy --Extra999 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sustainable energy navbox. There is considerable support for the RE navbox at Talk:Renewable_energy#RFC:_Which_navbox_to_use?, because it is smaller, cleaner, and more suitable for RE articles. Merging the RE and SE navboxes would just create problems. Consider a normal bottom-of-the-page navigation template for Sustainable energy. Johnfos (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to bottom-of-the-page navigation template. Change the Sustainable energy sidebar into bottom-of-the-page navigation template. However, it still needs cleanup and if changed into mbottom-of-the-page navigation template, also some additions. Merging these two sidebars is not good solution. Lets keep the Renewable energy template small as it is and have more comprehensive bottom navigation template. Beagel (talk) 10:33, 19 February 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) 06:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems too broad for a navbox, when you consider the large number of articles that could potentially be considered related to 'sustainable energy'. {{Renewable energy}} is more tightly focused, and seems to be supported by local consensus at Talk:Renewable energy. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much broader than just renewable energy sources, and it's not messy or incomplete, so I see no reason to delete it. Liam98 7 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much better template than renewable energy. More wikipedia standard like, more informative and helpful, and more comprehensive. The people at renewable energy have a liking for a small template. But this contradicts what everyone else on wikipedia think that templates should look like. A small group cannot dictate their own style of template for their 'own' pages, contradicting wikipedia wide style. Darx9url (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's much wider than renewable energy, and is being used on articles that renewable energy can't be used for Planetscared (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - am I allowed to vote without an account? I think it's a useful subject navigation aid. 71.212.231.71 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 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:Convert to Infobox Settlement[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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous, various TFD discussions such as this one, this one and this one, the community has rejected proposals to delete or merge all these similar infobox templates into {{infobox settlement}}. So why is there a talk page template that still suggests such a conversion – and is being used on the talk pages of these same infobox templates that were previously up for deletion? One instance has already been recently removed for this reason.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The goal of consolidating templates has merit and the fact that some don't get it and some discussions went awry is not a valid reason to knock this back. Alarbus (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, we don't really need a cleanup template for this: it's usually quite a lot of work to carry out these requests, and not something that many users are capable of. I'd prefer a tracking category like category:settlement infoboxes not based on infobox settlement on the template pages themselves which doesn't imply that this is simply uncontroversial cleanup work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sold. See {{be bold}} in updating templates. Alarbus (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the moment totally useless, is not doing anything, no changes within half a year, per nom. mabdul 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the wrong way to get the right thing done, per Chris C. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as creator, though I think we should at least have a tracking category (to which current uses are added) so that interested users can undertake this work. Many of these conversions are uncontroversial (e.g. clunky templates from 2006 for departments within a single province in Argentina). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 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:Cleanup-tracklist[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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-tracklist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not normative--anyone can use the tracklisting template or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It pointed to a section at WP:Albums that no longer existed before I changed it to point to the template. From the history it appears I inadvertently changed it back to the version that got nominated last time. In any case I don't really see a point in having a template telling someone to use a template. There is nothing wrong with having the track listing as a list and if someone wants to put them in templates they should do it themselves instead of asking someone else to. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is nothing saying {{tracklist}} must absolutely be used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 February 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:Pbrk[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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This odd paragraph used to be used in a lot of Template:Military navigation; mostly Template:Campaign. It worked poorly and has been deprecated, and is now pretty much an orphan. Time to get rid of it. Alarbus (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we now have a more elegant way of accomplishing the same result, I have no problem with deleting this. I assume that the remaining (non-archive) transclusions can be changed to use the new mechanism? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; best to keep things tidy. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the transclusions, including the 3 in an archive as they would break with this deleted. I had already edited that to fix categories. Alarbus (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since useless now... mabdul 11:10, 24 February 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:Syrian Air Force[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 Delete; deleted as G6 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian Air Force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

hard coded and not used in Syrian Air Force. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; wiki debris. Alarbus (talk) 02:36, 23 February 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.