Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 8



Serbia templates

 * 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) 00:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unused set of Serbial Portal subpage templates (main templates pages don't exist) WOSlinker (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, Looks like some test templates that are left like that unfinished. Since they are also unused it should be deleted. iadrian (talk) 11:02, 14 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:Smash Hits albums

 * 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) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Only navigates two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 8 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.

Route Infoboxes

 * 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) 01:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unused as articles now use Infobox road directly. WOSlinker (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I can't say anything about for or against the other routeboxes, the Template:Infobox NY County Routeboxes allow street names to be added. Besides that, I'm using them to develop Rockland County-style lists for Suffolk County, New York, and I'm still not finished developing those articles. DanTD (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All that can be done using Infobox road road (and that's what Infobox NY County Route uses anyway) -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a lot to go through, though. I'm still struggling with many of the details of the roads themselves. DanTD (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still the issue of the street names, which don't show up on Infobox road. I see that a parameter exists for them but it doesn't actually makes the names themselves show up. For example, County Route 100 (Suffolk County, New York) should have "Suffolk Avenue" as the name beneath the shield. DanTD (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Use alternate_name instead. Note that alternate names should only be used where a name applies to the entirety of a route, though, per the infobox guidelines. –  T M F 14:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That actually worked, however using alternate names only for entire routes doesn't seem very promising. And I'd still have to change over all those existing infoboxes. Ugh! DanTD (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the need to bypass template redirects, but whatever. Delete I guess. –  T M F 14:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Better idea; Why not delete the ones that aren't being used, and give me some time to fix many of the ones that are? Perhaps a week. I still don't know what Mitchazenia is doing about the ones he's working on, although I've already contacted him on the issue. DanTD (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, none of these are actually being used; the issue you describe above is a case of the wrong parameters being passed into infobox road, which can be taken care of independently from this discussion. Deleting these won't fix the parameters nor (if they're truly unused) break anything else. –  T M F 15:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd check, you'd realize most of the ones that are being used are in sandboxes for future articles right now. Granted, I'm fixing a lot of mine, but I don't know if anyone else will do anything with theirs. Slightly OT, TwinsMetsFan, did you get my message on the Montauk Highway article? Because the hidden infoboxes and chapters for Suffolk CR's 85 and 80 are still there for the potential merge. DanTD (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're saying. It's a quick fix, though, and I'd be willing to use AWB to correct them if you want. I have to fix a lot of the old NYCR transclusions anyway (they're using the deprecated |state=NY-C instead of |state=NY |type=CR). Re Montauk...I received the message but I've been preoccupied with article rewrites as of late. I'll check it out at some point. –  T M F 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good deal. I've got a number of hidden ones that I'm ready to convert manually, but if AWB won't cause me to lose any of the existing data I've got in my versions of the infoboxes, then go for it. DanTD (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did one page; however, those pages should be using infobox road small, not the full-blown infobox. See WP:USRD/RCS. –  T M F 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Precedence has been set by the deletion of Infobox Interstate.  One template for all works better than one template per type. &mdash;Fredddie™ 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – there's no need to have separate infoboxes that duplicate the function of one, especially when that one already provides the same funcationality.  Imzadi  1979   →   21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Infobox road handles the need.  Dough 48  72  00:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – add Infobox MN state highway to the list. WOSlinker has converted all current usages to infobox road, and it does not support an updated addition for the legal definitions of Minnesota's highways.  Imzadi  1979   →   08:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are seven other road boxes that I've been working on: Infobox NY Parkway, Infobox MN state highway, Infobox Maryland highway, Infobox FL State Road, Stateroutect, KSRoutebox abd Infobox Illinois state route. I was going to raise them in an another Tfd once this one had closed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do this, maybe all the ones that are being used now(even in sandboxes) should be converted sooner than later. DanTD (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do. I hadn't converted any userspace ones for active users but could do that if it's preferable. Do you need any help with yours? -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see two for New York County Roads, four for North Carolina, one for Massachusetts, and much to my surprise, one for the US Routes; That one is mine, and I might be able to fix that one myself. As for your future proposals, there are quite a number from Florida that are still being used. The thing about Florida is that a lot of State Roads become County Road at various points, and the infoboxes there try to reflect the changes. Prime examples include Florida State Road 48 and Florida State Road 581, among others. DanTD (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two examples are already using Infobox road. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So they are. I guess we don't have to worry about those two. Be that as it may, the Florida ones are still being used in some cases. You should contact User:Gamweb and User:Rich Farmbrough about this, because they've got some in their sandboxes. DanTD (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've converted all the userpage transclusions that I could find. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:00, 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:Washington Metro Lines

 * 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 redundant to. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Entirely redundant to Template:Washington Metro, which conveys the same information and more in a way that does not break the flow of the articles it is in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuild as a sidebar template. I agree the current format sucks. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why even sidebar it? Every place where this is used or could be useful, there is a navbox template that conveys all of the same information and a lot more.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. can stay for when people want to make this point. The rest of the metro line articles should really be using Template:Washington Metro anyway. --Mblumber (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Washington Metro Lines Detail is there for one article, to make maintaining that table easier. Otherwise, all the articles that use Washington Metro Lines already also use Washington Metro, so already done.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:31, 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:CentroUnitedStates

 * 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) 02:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Extremely large, unwieldy template with what would amount to several hundred listings if complete. Only one of these properties so far has proven notable enough for an article; the rest are miniscule strip malls which are extremely unlikely to prove notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Only transcluded in one place, and that itself is up for deletion for the same reason.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:16, 8 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:Welfare state sidebar

 * 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) 00:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

POV and violation of general rule regarding links. See below Hauskalainen (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Template was created seemingly by an experienced editor using a sockpuppet account created for the purpose
 * 2) Template violates general namespace policy that "templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function."
 * 3) Although on on the surface the template seemed to follow some existing guidelines, it broke certain others, fundamentally NPOV (for example building a link by association between Universal health care and socialism and public housing and socialism and linking to articles with politically oriented names such as Nanny state. See also the arguments at the template talk page.
 * 4) The history of the editor shows that the edits were a well planned "attack" on certain articles via the template. The editor did not respond to requests from me to consult with other editors in the targeted articles about the template and its content. Attempts by me to do so revealed little or no response from other editors.
 * 5) Edits to the template could (and probably would) have created contentious content in articles watched over using watchlists without the editors watching those articles via watchlists alone from being aware of this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems POV by its nature.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:55, 15 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.