Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 4



Template:Wpd

 * 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) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Protected, cannot add deletion template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, WTF is this? It's a template to make a wikilink??????? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just another one of Fabartus's pointless cross-wiki imports, this one from Meta. Safe to say that this was never of any use at all on en-WP itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with haste No one will miss it if it's deleted early. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:15, 6 July 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:Expand

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)



The argument presented in the last TFD stated that pretty much all articles that aren't FA class are inherently in need of expansion. Literally every time I've seen this template used, the "discussed on the talk page" segment has been entirely overlooked — it's just been used as a simple drive-by tagging, no more. The last AFD closed as a delete with a rationale of "closer examination show that most keep arguments revolve around the usefulness of the template to point out sections that need expansion, a purpose which is just as easily done with expand-section.[…]Also, the more general consensus in recent years is that maintenance templates on articles are undesirable when not strictly necessary."

Discussion on the template talk page turns up points such as "This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion" — exactly what I've witnessed on the many articles I, myself, used to drive-by tag until I began reverting my own taggings. I also see surprisingly little use of the expand-section template, which I find far more useful as it is more specific in what needs to be expand. Just saying "this article needs expansion" and not elaborating is not helpful, and even counter-productive in that it adds nothing but another maintenance template that nobody ever takes care of. I've been here since December 2005 and the only times I have ever seen an expand template remedied are the times that I did it myself. Also note that the template's earliest revision corresponded to requests for expansion, which was closed off and tagged historical back in late 2008 because absolutely nothing was being done to knock down the then 2 1/2 year backlog. Again, I'll say — any article that isn't currently FA-class is inherently need of expansion, so this template is redundant to the extreme. We have the stub-start-C-B-A ranking of articles, which I find far more efficient in determining the "completeness" of an article.

A very long DRV in May overturned the deletion as "no consensus." It's been two months since the last AFD, so I think that it's time to look at this one again. This template is helping absolutely nobody, as it does nothing but state the obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it's more useful than having ten or twenty expand-section templates on an article. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time I've seen an expand-section used, there were one or two at the most. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw an article with !15! expand-section templates once... every section in the article had an expand-section tag. I replaced all that waste with one expand template. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment the expand-further template seems to be heading towards keep... 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * expand-further will be merged when I get round to it. I would concur that its being merged is rather predicated on there being something to merge to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary and excessively overused template. Every article can be improved from editing. Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 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:O-Parts Hunter

 * 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) 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This template was really big at first, but now it contains only three links. deerstop. 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - considering there are only five links, one of which is the obligatory author link, and one of which (the Angels and Demons list) is merge fodder, I'm not seeing enough links to justify a navbox. And unless about three of the characters turn out to be notable enough for their own articles, there won't be enough articles to justify the navbox any time soon either. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Dinoguy. Not a large enough franchise or set of articles to require its own navigation template. --erachima talk 09:31, 13 July 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:British Arab

 * 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) 23:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)



British Arab is not a clearly defined term and does not appear in the UK census as an ethnicity category (although it will in 2011). The main problem with this template is that it conflates ethnicity and country of birth. Not all Sudanese are Arabs, for instance. See previous discussion about similar templates here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The usual practise is to divide these kinds of navigation templates by continent, rather than by alleged ethnic group. When writing articles about migrant groups whose boundaries are defined by ethnicity, it's important to steer clear of WP:OR which confuses ancestral citizenship and ethnicity (e.g. many people from North African countries are likely to be Berbers rather than Arabs). cab (talk) 08:46, 5 July 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:YTL Corporation

 * 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) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)



Contains only one link, so isn't useful for navigation at all. Svick (talk) 12:58, 4 July 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:StarHub TV channels

 * 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) 07:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)



This list has been fails WP:DIRECTORY and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. As indeed, SkyCable here in the Philippines removes the channel-line up section in that article, therefore the channel list has been not following in directory guidelines. ApprenticeFan work 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this isn't a template at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it's being used at StarHub TV, so it does have a purpose as a template. I'll remain neutral since I'm not sure whether such a listing is appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is gross misuse of template space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:57, 5 July 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.