Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 5



Cricketer templates

 * 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, but can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)



Unused, unnecessary templates. None have any transclusions or links. Mhiji (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, as well as subpages in each player template (eg. Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/1stclass, Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/bowl, Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/bat ‎and Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/dob). Template:Cricket Player, Template:Cricket Player List and Template:Cricket Player List Header also.
 * I think the idea was a good faith attempt at improvement but the structure is too convoluted for the average user to follow and is of only small benefit. 1975 Cricket World Cup squads and 1979 Cricket World Cup squads should revert back to simple tables.  –Moondyne 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the idea for this from the way one of the more established templates Template:Infobox Election uses for the party color & party short name. If the problem is only the complexity, then perhaps I can discuss with you experts on how this can be simplified and I will make sure I change all of them. This is a passionate request... Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Anyway, I accept your point about the number of players and recognise that this could end up mushrooming into a very large number if used as a precedent for other sports. In that regard, I accept that this approach is not that great. Thanks for the link to WT:CRIC - I tried looking for a place to bounce my idea off, but couldn't really find the right place (I was looking more at the Template-related projects rather than Cricket specific projects). Anyway, thanks for responding to me in much detail. Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is probably a more efficient manner of doing things, once established - but it is not the way the Wikipedia works, or should work. Editing should be intuitive. I have enough problems trying to edit succession boxes and rail templates without expanding the concept too much further. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Moondyne delete the subpages and the other 3 templates as well. Mhiji (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys - I strongly request not to delete this. I accept that it is a bit complex structure, but I can look to simplify that. The idea was to store static information about crickets in a single place and then transclude that using the Templates to show where ever needed. Practically every cricket tournament has either a section or linked page that contains the squad of the teams that took part and as someone who has been looking at it, there are multiple cases of this information being different in different pages.
 * Basing it on a similar style to Country data (e.g. Template:Country data Australia) would be a little better as at least all the data for one person would be in one template. Not sure if date of birth needs ot be in every cricket squad article though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why they are necessary or useful. I don't think its sensible basing the approach on the way Template:Infobox election works as there are a relatively small number of parties, but there are hundreds of professional cricket players. This would mean creating a new template every time a new cricket player is involved in a tournament (and if the approach was used for other sports, every time a new sports person enters any tournament - literally thousands of templates). I suppose it would make sense to have a centralised record of player details if they would change over time and thus would need updating regularly (so that all the articles would not need to be updated separately) but these details are very unlikely to change so it seems unnecessary. Also I agree with WOSlinker, the player's date of birth doesn't need to be there. Although this would mean having to change every one of the templates separately... This is also a flaw with the method as any changes would need to be made to every template separately. Actually, thinking about it I'm not sure the other details need to be there either. If a reader wants to find out more information about a player (such as whether they are right- or left-handed or their bowling style) then they will click on the link to the relevant player article anyway. Also, any major changes like this should really be proposed at WT:CRIC first. Mhiji (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was something I found interesting when I first started using Wikipedia to browse through the World Cup history etc. The World Cups used to have this data manually populated. I was simply trying to centralise it so that it doesn't need to be manually entered in every tournament and a change in single place would change it everywhere. Also, in the current design, if the dob needs to be removed from all pages, it only needs to be removed from the 3 main templates.
 * Thankyou for putting so much effort into improving Wikipedia. I know its soul-destroying when your hard work gets deleted and you would have spent many hours on this.  –Moondyne 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll consider it a learning course.
 * 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:SA

 * 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, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (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:Hamlets in Suffolk

 * 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) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There must be hundreds of hamlets in Suffolk, putting them all into one template would be unweildy and not at all useful Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. --Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary duplication already included in multiple infoboxes that are in each of the articles see Boxford Edwardstone Round Maple Gnangarra 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, such navigation template wouldn't be very useful. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (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:Hamlets in Norfolk

 * 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) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of hamlets in Norfolk and I see no use in putting them all in one template. This current one is far from complete. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. An English county or administraztive area could have thousands of hamlets.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (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:Nct

 * 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) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is redundant to Template:Cr. Mhiji (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template contributor notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notification. With n substitute being clearly available I've not problem with it's removal. Earl CG (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (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:Den
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (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:Mythological king of Sweden
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)



In the process of cleaning up the category sort in articles transcluding this template, I found it easier to just orphan by substitution, since it automatically adds a cat, and it was otherwise impossible to sort the cats. Given that it was only transcluded on about 5 articles, and didn't really save any typing, I felt this was uncontroversial. It was also a bit inflexible, in that it could not be merged with other neighboring succession templates due its transclusion of the s-start and s-end templates. Hence, I now present this template for deletion. If my orphaning of this template is controversial, I am happy to revert these edits. Thank you. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (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:Naismith Award Winners Men
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)



Basically hard coded versions of succession box which are orphaned and haven't had any significant edits since 2006. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Reh  man  02:09, 11 December 2010 (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:IPNI
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IPNI
 * Ipni

Propose merging Template:IPNI with Template:Ipni.

Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ipni as duplication. --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (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:RomanCentury
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"18th century" etc. is not the recommended style for centuries (see WP:MOS). The template is not used anymore, and even if it would give MoS-friendly output ("18th century"), requires more keystrokes than simply "18th century". Markussep Talk 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per T2 and WP:MOS. Mhiji (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is useless and (thus) unused. But it is not a T2 candidate, because it does not "blatantly misrepresent" any policy. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">Thparkth (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove superscript tag and subst all uses, per above. ―cobaltcigs 07:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact there are none, so just delete. ―cobaltcigs 07:53, 10 December 2010 (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:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything besides a couple user and Wikipedia space pages and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (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:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (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.