Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 26



Template:Alcohol (drug)

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This template is being used in a non-standard manner to hang a long list of alchohol and health related topics in the Health sections of various articles, some of which are shorter than the template itself. Not only is this a style issue, it gives the impression that Wikipedia has an opinion on alcohol consumption and health by presenting far too many topics than needed, and in a way that only occurs for this topic. It is not necessary to list all imaginable health and alchohol topics in this way, standard methods are available and are more than adequate, such as using a {See also} hatnote at the top of the section, to link to an over-view health and alchohol article (which oddly doesn't seem to exist), or to Alcoholic beverage. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an appropriate navlink, grouping together related articles. Though I would say that as a navlink it would be better off in wide format at the bottom of the page, than in narrow at the top. I feel that reformating the template might address MickMacNee's main concerns.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the adjustments to the template and the articles on which the template is placed, so that it is no longer intrusive, but is still able to serve as a useful navigation aid, and in a location that people are accustomed to looking for such navigation templates.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is better, less intrusive and closer to the standard style. I would withdraw the nomination on the proviso it remains in this form. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per SilkTork. Templates such as this are actually used in other articles. Infact templates for articles which have more than say three closely related subjects help avoid long see also lists. The harms to health of alcohol are widely accepted. If you think article content is biased the response to that should be to edit them using reliable sources rather than trying to delete a useful navigational template.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per SilkTork. The recent format changes are certainly an improvement that maintains the usefulness of the nav template. AgneCheese/Wine 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per SilkTork. Seems like a perfectly reasonable navigational template to me, and I don't really see how the present template can be construed in the nominator's way. Tomas e (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See above, I made the nomination when the template was basically a huge vertical full font See Also list dumped in the middle of articles, in a 'you must read this' fashion. The new format is a million miles better, and does not stomp all over the visual cortex of people who are just happily reading the prose of an article and stumble on a small Health paragraph, and had less than zero interest in these suggested articles, particularly when that paragraph comprises less than 2% of the size of the whole article. (if anyone's interested, the article I was reading was Cider. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems useful. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a very useful 'dashboard' with which to navigate from one topic to another. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The template in discussion is very useful when navigating through the topics at hand.-- Metalhead94 TC 16:55, 1 April 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:Season

 * 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 ―Œ (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Season and Template:Weathernav with Template:Weather.

Season seems to be an inferior and less-used version of Weather. Weathernav seems to be better but was apparently adapted from Weather without attribution, so I think Weathernav should be the template used but should be merged to Weather along with Season. anemoneprojectors  talk  19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I have notified WikiProject Meteorology of this discussion. anemoneprojectors   talk  19:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support this seems like a sensible suggestion to me, and as far as I can tell the templates are redundant. As Weather seems to be the most used, mainstream one, and the best designed, I think merging the other two there would work fine. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Weathernav contains links that Weather does not, which is why I proposed using the layout of Weathernav, but I do agree that Weather is better designed. anemoneprojectors   talk  21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but I think those links can be added to Weather without much problem :-) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, redirecting both Weathernav and Season to Weather and expanding that template to cover the additional functionality seems like the optimal solution here. There's certainly no need for more than one template for this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Three templates for the same basic navigation is overkill. Weather is the most popular, so it should probably be the target to merge to. I do think collapsible sections are a good idea for this type of sidebar, so if that feature could be ported over from Weathernav, that would be nice. --RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 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:Jump

 * 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) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No transclusions, and I don't really think anyone will use this in the future either. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was just going to nominate this one myself. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete despite being around since 2005, it is unused and seemingly useless. Not even sure what its trying to do. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently this creates a jump link, like the link to the next page on a multi-page news article, except that the link goes to a footnote. This certainly doesn't match the normal formatting for articles, and I can't think of any compelling use for it. In the rare case that someone wanted to do that, it could be done with regular markup. --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 26 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:Error correction

 * 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) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Navigation template that is not being used on any of the articles that it links to. It looks outdated and abandoned. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unused and not a good use for a template. Seems like this articles would, by nature, already link to one another in the prose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The time-line parts makes no sense: "1940s-1960s: checksum"? Checksums are certainly in current use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:45, 26 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:Buzzify film

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for this template. It's a non-noteworthy site and is being placed on multiple film articles, which such can be seen as spam/COI. — Mike   Allen   03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Site offers nothing new so it shouldn't be placed on that many articles, certainly not enough to warrant a template. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete non-noteworthy site, adds nothing to any article, and seems more of a spam template than any legitimate use. Created by SPA whose only edits were to make this template, and shove Buzzify links on over a dozen articles. Before hits edits, no article had such links. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per others' arguments. Does not appear to be an authoritative external link to include, much less have a template for. Erik (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My intensions wasn't to spam the articles. I added RT and/or Metacritics links in most of my edits too. Thought templates was supposed to make it easier to add the links (or other content). However if it's decided that the Buzzify template/links should be deleted I'll respect that decision and only add RT and Metacritics links on pages missing these. My opinion is that the reviews list on Buzzify is quicker to go through than RT/MC, that's all. Bocker 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC+1)


 * Hi, Bocker. Thanks for explaining the reason you created the template, and I apologize if we seem to come on a bit strong.  While Buzzify does seem simpler where the other two are packed with features, we have consensus for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they are well-known in public.  We link to them so there can be access to multiple reviews at once since links to individual reviews are not allowed.  It may help to read WP:EL about how to use external links on Wikipedia.  We try to avoid what's called a "link farm" because we should strive for as few external links as possible while making sure we can supplement the article with more useful content.  We also have MOS:FILM and WP:RTMC available to read as well.  Please let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Erik. Thanks for the links. I've read through most it now, and I understand the reasoning behind putting this up for deletion. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Bocker 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC+1)


 * Delete - Spam-ish link to non notable site  MMS  2013  12:08, 26 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:Economy of Europe (template)
<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. Unused navbox with all redlinks. RL0919 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unused navigation template, which is used to navigate between mostly deprecated or deleted templates (i.e., hard-coded, single-use, infoboxes) Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Navbox that links to templates? Redundant to Economy of Europe which links to the articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps it's a non-article template for template documentation? I've seen some that link similar templates together in their documentation in the form of a navbox before... 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:40, 29 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.