Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 15



Template:Katikireddy

 * 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. I think speedy would have been acceptable here, but with a full TFD period already elapsed, it's a moot point. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a template in any meaningful sense, and it is not used as a template anywhere. It is, in fact, an article on a non-notable subject which has been given a title with "Template:" as a prefix, probably due to lack of understanding by the creator. I think this really qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD but, because of the claim to be a template, I thought it safer to nominate it here. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like an obvious newbie test to me. Delete, speedily if appropriate.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Speedy Delete if appropriate - per nom. I would agree that it would qualify for WP:CSD, but with it being a template it is a good idea to bring it here first.  Dspradau   → talk   15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Treating it as an article, I don't see much notability to pass WP:GNG. It's also completely unreferenced and barely coherent. As a template, it's completely useless. It couldn't possibly be used anywhere. Borderline A7, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:23, 16 February 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:Infobox Indian actor

 * 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. Since the distinct content to merge is fields that have been rejected for Infobox actor in the past, a proper merge seems unlikely. And with no current transclusions, even a redirect seems unnecessary. So the "delete" fallback offered by most participants carries the day. RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian actor with Template:Infobox actor.

Fork of the main actor template. The only difference is that it has a list of awards. The awards were removed from the main template back in April 2009 "per talk page request and consensus at WT:ACTOR". We can't have a different infobox for every nationality because we would have to maintain dozens of templates instead of just one. Enric Naval (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge or Delete - There are actually several parameters that have been removed from the general infobox actor that are native to the more generic Template:Infobox person: nationality, known_for, education, notable works, occupation, height, weight, religion, children, parents, relations, signature, and signature_caption. However, I can't see where any of those parameters are relevant or useful for an actor article. Most of these points are, or should be, covered in the main article body (besides signature, height and weight) and are omitted for other valid reasons). There should not be infobox templates divisions based on nationality of the person. Notability requirements are the same whether American, Indian, French or Martian. However, since this template isn't actually used on any articles, I lean toward deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete - per User:Wildhartlivie  Dspradau   → talk   15:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, since there are no transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:25, 17 February 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:Little Chocolatiers

 * 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

Template provides no navigation. Sarilox (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing there to navigate. As the show evolves there will be more to do so. Mr. Prez (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr, re-create the template when there are at least, say, three different articles. Copy/paste the source code into a notepad file or a Word file and save it in your computer so you don't have to write it again. I'm not sure of what other articles you are going to create, so I'll go also go for delete.


 * P.D.: Some advice. I would advise against creating articles on each of the show protagonists, because they will be quickly nominated for merging them into the show article. You will only get a few people commenting about "not being notable" and other wikipedia slang, which the article subjects might not like. First put the relevant info inside the show article, and then, maybe, sometime in the future, it can be splitted out if there are enough sources (and that's going to take quite a few sources, in order to fullfill the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline or, by default, the WP:ANYBIO one). There is also the WP:BLP biography of living persons to create additional headaches. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No navigable content yet. Can recreate if/when there are articles to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 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:Pre-Homo

 * 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

Not used in mainspace; duplicates Human Evolution. Ucucha 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Human Evolution is a footer, Pre-Homo is a side-bar. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There can be cases where redundant sidebar and footer navboxes are OK, but in this case the sidebar is unused and seemingly abandoned (no edits since 2007, no talk page or wikiproject discussion). --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 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:Lhs

 * 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 the discussion of the similar template at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 14. RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This template is a convuluted way of doing something very simple. A similar template is already up for deletion here. Keegscee (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment this is possibly useful for sortable table sortkeys. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the benefit over just using the piped link is ... ? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possibly useful as a sortkey in a sortable table. If you don't know how sortable table works, you'll have to look it up, or I'd take a very large amount of space here explaining it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this would behave any different in sort keys than simply using a piped link. The first parameter won't affect sorting, since it's inside the  tag. A template like this:  would be useful for sorting, if that is what you meant (use param 1 for sorting, but only display param 2). --  Nx  / talk  12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP should link here an example where this template is serving an useful role, so we can see by ourselves if it's really being useful or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 19 February 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.