Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 10



Template:Vp infobox

 * 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) 01:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken attempt an infobox, apparently intended for the Vypro article. The article was deleted, and the editor's user space draft for it uses a different, standard infobox. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, stillborn template with little chance for wider use. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:13, 11 May 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:Cwgc

 * 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The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. Based on the link info provided by David, there is a significant potential for wider use of this template, and it sounds like there is interest in using it. Since the basis of the nomination was lack of use, there is no need to pursue it further. RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Little-used external link template (just six transclusions), easily replaced with a regular link. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be little-used now, but it seems to certainly have scope for wider adoption: over 500 inbound links to Commonwealth War Graves Commission from articlespace and lots of them look like biographies (for instance, out of the first ten links to that page it's definitely applicable to Siegfried Sassoon, which I've just added it to). I'd rather that extlink templates were used wherever practical, and this looks like a fitting example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise this existed, or I would have made use of it by now. However, CWGC data is usually used (by me at least) as a reference, rather than an external link, so I would prefer to see it revamped to produce output more akin to using cite web I would tend to do e.g. , which better reflects how the page is actually titled.  It could also be extended to be used on the CWGC's cemetery pages as well, as we have articles on a numebr of those (e.g. Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery).  Yes, ordinary links could be used, but in cases like this, as with London Gazette and NRA it can help centralise maintenance of links to these resources.  CWGC did update their URL scheme last year, but switched back when they realised just how many external links to their site were broken - but there's no guarantee they won't change in future.  However, it seems unlikely they'll actually change the casualty ids (which are presumably the primary key in the underlying database table), so having the template means if a change is made we can swiftly fix all links by amending the template, rather than rooting through individual articles.  David Underdown (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding use in cemetery articles, please note that there is Template:Cwgc cemetery for linking cemetery records. I am not nominating that one, because it is used on over 100 articles. This template links records for individual people, and the formats of the two templates are rather different, so I doubt whether it would be effective to combine them. Regarding the possibility of wider use in biographies, I note that this template has existed since 2006, so there has been ample opportunity to use it. And personally I do not favor the use of link templates over regular links unless there is a good reason for it. However, a real increase in usage would be a legitimate ground for keeping. --RL0919 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realised that the cemetery template existed too. This template may have existed since 2006, but the user who created it retired 4 months after creating it.  Though once or twice I've thought a template might be useful, for some reason I've never actually got round to looking if one actually existed.  There are over 1000 articles which link to Casualty Details pages, and more being added regularly, that's a lot of links to maintain if urls do change (obviously the first switch to a template requires work, but could potentially be entrusted to a bot, or at least semi-automated).  I referred to London Gazette, their url scheme has chagned compeltely on 2 or 3 occasions.  The first time took hundreds of man hours to repair all the links.  The later occasions were brought up to date within seconds.  David Underdown (talk) 14:59, 11 May 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:Cite LacusCurtius

 * 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) 06:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External link template to an infrequently cited source material site. Used on just four articles, where it can easily be replaced with a regular link or citation template. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, template with little chance for wider use. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:14, 11 May 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:Arbitron

 * 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) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External link template for linking to Arbitron ranking lists for radio stations. There does not seem to be any reason to encourage linking to these lists, and the template is not used in any articles. RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't encourage linkspam. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:14, 11 May 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:Sisterwikis

 * 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) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Old system of interwiki linking templates made redundant by Sister and Sisterlinks. The formatting of related templates has changed, so the few remaining uses (mostly on a handful of user pages of inactive editors, none on articles) are broken. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, deprecated. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, template cruft where more than enough alternatives exist. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:10, 13 May 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:Sisterlinkqsc

 * 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) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Old redundant variant of Sisterlinks. Since its content is Sisterlinks with some fields set to 'no', it can easily be substituted and deleted. Used on fewer than 20 articles. RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, deprecated, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:05, 11 May 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:Sisterproject
<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/Redirect Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This old metatemplate was deleted in 2005 and then partially restored for mysterious reasons in early 2006. Its only content currently is a wikilink to Sister projects, which hardly requires a template. Unused except in another template nominated for deletion below. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sisterlinks as a good name for an alias/redirect. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:37, 12 May 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:UtComns
<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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Essentially unused (one transclusion in a user talk page archive from 2006) template for linking to user talk pages on Wikimedia Commons. It is redundant to Ute, which is in use and superior in that it can link to other WMF projects besides just Commons. RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 11 May 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 Cardiff library
<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. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unused. Redundant to Infobox library. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This will serve a purpose on completion of an article about Libraries in Cardiff that I'm working on in my sandbox.  Welsh leprechaun  17:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The generic infobox should suffice for that. Listing phone numbers and bus routes is a breach of WP:NOT. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a look in User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox5, and unfortunately I would have to agree that a lot of what makes this infobox variant different from the generic library box is guidebook / directory content which isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I had a look at the sandbox as well, and I don't see any advantage of using this template over the generic library template. Plastikspork (talk) 05:19, 19 May 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:Convert/kph
<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 Keep as a useful component for this template. I note that I was unable to find any discussion related to the previous deletion in June 2008, which was done as a G7 speedy deletion after the page previously at this name was moved, so there does not appear to have been any prior consensus on the matter. RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted long ago to avoid encouraging the non-standard "kph". It's back again but should not be. J IM ptalk·cont 10:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a perfectly plausible redirect for an otherwise difficul, quirky, and temperamental template to navigate. --emerson7 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that convert was throwing out so few ugly red errors on articles these days that we needed to encourage it to put out more. So long as it's not actually putting "kph" rather than "km/h" on articles, I don't see the harm. Postel's Law applies here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this is a redirect, not a template. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 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.