Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 10



Sports seasons

 * 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 all the nominated templates. No article deletion has been proposed here. RL0919 (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Each of these navigation templates only has 1 page to go to. Gman 124 talk 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all. All of these can be just as easily expressed in the teams' main templates. (For that matter, the single article that each one links to could, in most cases, be integrated into the main article... but that's another issue altogether, beyond the scope of this discussion.) While there are some teams (e.g. Tonawanda, St. Louis) that played more than one season, there aren't any plans to add separate articles for those seasons, mostly because they were non-NFL seasons. --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Template deletion is fine but oppose the deletion/integration of the articles to which they link. Useight (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles are a separate issue, just for the sake of clarification. My recommendation for deletion in this discussion specifically refers to the templates. --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:38, 10 March 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:Chester City F.C. squad

 * 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 as obsolete. RL0919 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chester City F.C. have now been wound-up by the courts in the UK. The club no longer exists and the players are therefore no longer under contract; there is no further need for the squad template. Pretty Green (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Template is probably obsolete now. EuroPride (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the whole purpose of this template is to display the club's current squad. As the club no longer exists, it will never again have a current squad, so the template is not required -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since the club no longer exists, it is not possible for them to have a current squad. – PeeJay 14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - what a shame, but the club has ceased to exist, thuis the template is redundant.   Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:48, 16 March 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:WPStooge

 * 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD since a project banner with no project is useless. RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unused project banner template with just red-links. WOSlinker (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused template. User requested deletion of Wikiproject. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:13, 11 March 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:EnergyPortal

 * 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. As alluded to by Chris Cunningham, the consensus in this discussion is contrary to the close of Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 8. I would encourage some type of centralized discussion (perhaps at Template talk:Portal or Wikipedia talk:Portal, with notices posted elsewhere) in the hope of forming a broader and more stable consensus. RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant of Portal (cf. Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_8). Actually, why do any of these exist? Do any of them do anything that can't be accomplished with Portal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment added in later I found this while trying to combine portals with portalbox. See here. Unless I miss my guess, these specialized portal templates are not only redundant (as I mentioned above), but they can't be merged, creating an eyesore and wasted space. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added the energy portal template to the template box you referred above, so the claim that they can't be merged into portalbox is not true. Beagel (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. As there was the question, I try to answer: it is easier to use this template than to accomplish each {tl|Portal}} template, which is used to promote Energy portal, with Image:Crystal energy.svg parameter. It is not a big work in case of few pages, but as of today more than 2,000 pages use this template. And even taking account that some of this could be done by using bot, it can't be fully automated. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no harm in letting these templates exist. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant as per nom, can be replaced rapidly by bot or with AWB. — what a crazy random happenstance 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These exist for editor convenience and for consistency (so that all energy portal links use the same image). They also help to ensure that changes to that image are propagated automatically: for instance, fossportal had the image removed after it was found to be inappropriate, which meant that articles which used the sub-template rather than using portal directly were all automatically updated to be compliant. The Taoism portal TfD was a bad close, and if I cared enough I'd take it to DRV. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say keep them, to me it would be easier to change the template from one place rather than going back and changing every article, if for some reason, an image gets deleted. Thogh i thing the guy above already said that. Gman 124 talk 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I already explained above, deleting this template will just create an addition workload (replacing this template as also tagging pages with the Energy portal template in future). As an active editor of WP:Energy who is also involved in maintaining of the Portal:Energy I see here a clear problem. At the same time nobody has explained what are the benefits of deleting it. Does it make the life of editors easier or does it make Wikipedia the better place? I don't think so. Beagel (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see no reason to delete this, it is using portal as a meta template like we do for many other types of templates.
 * Keep: I agree with Beagel, the template is for the editor convenience, supports consistency, and reduces the number of errors that would occur if the generic template was used. Q Science (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to consistency and convenience Gary King  ( talk ) 02:30, 17 March 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.