Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 10



Template:Latest stable software release/FireIRC

 * 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 —EncMstr (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No used anymore. Article deleted at AfD, and the entries in the comparison article were deleted as promotional and WP:OR because this client is not mentioned in any books or included in any round-up reviews. Pcap ping  22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I understand the deletion of the primary article due to it was written in a bias manner (Because I'm the programmer) But really, deleting the comparison entries was a bit overkill due to its just a comparison not an opinion, or trying to get promotional gain. I think this and the entries in the comparison article should be returned. Mmanley (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a software catalog. Adding your software to that article when no reliable source discusses it self-promotion. Pcap ping  17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Ok, I can see how it is considered self-promotion. Its ok to delete this template Mmanley (talk) 05:58, 14 January 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:Chopin ballades

 * 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 —EncMstr (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The individual articles for the Ballades no longer exist; they have been merged into one big Ballades (Chopin). As such, I do not feel that this template has any additional purpose. With the articles like Ballade No. 1 (Chopin) cleared of this template, it is only transcluded in two places - a talk page and a redirect.  In sor ak ♫  talk  18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fair enough.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 12:27, 12 January 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 conditionals

 * 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 Redirect —EncMstr (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unused and WTH does it work for? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was TFD'ed before and the result was to redirect it to Infobox. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, the template was created as an educational aid for people wanting to learn more complicated template syntax without being burdened with dealing with a true template that likely contains overly complex syntax. Having said that, wherever this was linked from originally, Whatlinkshere indicates the only thing pointing to it now is a redirect. So unless links are being made to that redirect, I'm not married to the idea of keeping it around. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 07:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Infobox, I think. There's some odd history here. As mentioned by Locos epraix above, it went thru TFD in April 2006, with a result of "redirect". There was then a deletion review in May 2006, with no change to the template's status. But in June 2006, the redirect was undone, apparently without any discussion, with the comment "Template:Infobox does not properly document parserFunctions". Maybe that was true in 2006, but in 2010 it appears that the documentation for Infobox is a lot better than the virtually unexplained example at Infobox conditionals. Although it isn't transcluded, there are some incoming links, so restoring the redirect seems a reasonable solution. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 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:Blue Water High

 * 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 —EncMstr (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unused navbox that provides no navigation. Sarilox (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: No sense in having a navigation box with only one link. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 06:22, 10 January 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:Wikipedia-Books

 * 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 at this time to rename or delete


 * Rename to Template:Wikipedia books. Templates should be easy to use by virtue of consistent naming conventions. Having the dash is both redundant and inconsistent (except for stub templates). Page names, regardless of which namespace the pages belong to, generally only have the first word capitalised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although I am not adamant about this. In an ideal world, the template would be named WPBOOKS, WBOOKS, Book, or variants (which are all taken) or Wikipedia:Books. However, for technical reasons, columns aren't a good idea in this template. If you place Wikipedia:Books on a page, Wikipedia will think you want to transclude Books. The dash is the circumvention of that issue. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd rather delete it for crufting important articles, but no opinion about the name. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Headbomb is correct in why I chose to name this template Wikipedia-Books. The project itself is referred to as "Wikipedia Books" or "Wikipedia-Books" and the related WikiProject WikiProject Wikipedia-Books uses the same naming scheme for the same reasons. If this template is renamed, Wikipedia-Books link which is the in-line version of this template should also be renamed. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:50, 19 January 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.