Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 31



Template:Ref harvard

 * 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 after replacement, with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Low use template, replaceable by harv. Need to enable harv on the templates and ensure the authors are properly split by first and last name parameters. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to harv per nom. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't just redirect— it needs some work in the article, which I have identified. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe it is not used a lot but it is used nonetheless. A redirection is also out of question. Why break numerous articles when we can simply do not break them? However, if you replace all instances of the template usage personally, perhaps the deletion may be considered. Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you would think we would break anything. If consensus is to replace this, then I would update each article with harv and tweak the citations as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not my concern. This breaking and mending is a waste of energy and time with no gain at all. In generaal, I'm against such a waste. Of course, you are at liberty to invest your valuable time and energy on whatsoever you see fit; your decision shall be respected and appreciated but not agreed with. Fleet Command (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - If we would follow above reasoning we would have 100 times the current number of templates on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant; replace it using Harvard citation (which harv redirects to). Airplaneman   ✈  14:57, 9 June 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:Ref harv

 * 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) 07:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)



A wonderfully unique reference template used in one article— Joe McDoakes. I'm still trying to figure out how to update it. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit history suggests that it's just a superscripted version of ref harvard. The current version looks compatible enough that it could just be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is TfD above. I figured out how to directly replace the template, but the article isn't going to look any better. It is just weird in how it was done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In Wikipedia we don't delete things just because they are used only once. (Wikipedia is not democracy.) Why should we break the one article when we can simply not break it? Please request deletion only when you have finished phasing out the template and replacing its transclusions. Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously we really do delete templates when only used once. There is no requirement to phase out a template before asking for deletion. The deleting admin will of course take care when deleting and replace the template or do something else so not to break the article. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Only used once. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant; replace it using Harvard citation (which harv redirects to). Airplaneman   ✈  14:58, 9 June 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:Footnotes

 * 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) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)



The reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The single transclusion was being used to show footnotes on a talk page. I replaced it with reflist-talk ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I still see this from time to time in new articles... Is one of the article wizards or form templates also using this content? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as this looks like the template substituted into the footnotes section when one creates an article using the article wizard. As a frequent Newpage Patroller, I see this daily; therefore, it is still being used frequently and is not phased out as the nominator claims. Airplaneman   ✈  14:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just asked at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard. I had left a message on Template talk:Footnotes weeks ago with no reply and this TfD has been ongoing, so no one is watching the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Article Wizard uses Article wizard/skeleton as a preload, which adds:
 * So, it does not use the Footnotes template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:20, 9 June 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.
 * 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:Footnotestext

 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and long since redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 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:International NF-Board

 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned for over 2 years. Borgarde (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and apparently unwanted. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 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:Scams

 * 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. There's a strong consensus for merging these, but as far as I can see no one's suggesting anything be deleted. When Scams is merged into confidence tricks, it can be redirected there. I can do the job as closer, but it looks like others have clear ideas of how it should be done so I may be making life harder for them by doing it too. So I'll leave this for a few days and then merge them if no one else has by then. delldot  &nabla;.  21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Thanks to user:Penbat for carrying out the merge! delldot   &nabla;.  02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Scams with Template:Confidence Tricks.

Similar scope, and better developed and organized. Pnm (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Items that don't at Template:Confidence Tricks could be considered for inclusion in Template:Fraud. -- Pnm (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge: i happen to be working on a restructure of list of confidence tricks see User:Penbat/list of confidence tricks and i just spotted the duplication. --Penbat (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge and call the new template "Scams and confidence tricks" so one looking for a template on either would know they both exist. Hellno2 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: List of confidence tricks makes an effort to categorise the confidence tricks (or scams) into types. List of confidence tricks and the template need to tie in with each other with a brief summary of each scam given and in many cases a link given to a separate article for each individual scam. If categorisation into types is viable then it should also be applied to the template by splitting it up into sub-sections.--Penbat (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: List of confidence tricks has now been restructured. See Talk:List_of_confidence_tricks for more info. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Confidence tricks - no need for two templates. Robofish (talk) 12:12, 7 June 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:The Larry Sanders Show

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All characters now on "list of characters" page; this navigation template is no longer necessary. WCityMike 01:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is only actually linking two articles, not enough to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's three - the main show article, the character list and the episode list. That might be enough, but I still don't think it's really needed. Robofish (talk) 12:11, 7 June 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.