Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 5



Template:Greek

 * 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) 20:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This template should be removed mainly because its text gives bad advice, since any insertion of Greek script ought to be based on reliable sources, rather than, as implied, based on the fact that an editor is "knowledgeable". A request for Greek script can equally well be inserted as a talk page comment. This template, furthermore, has been there since August 2006 and is currently unused. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a request template. If all current requests are filled, it will not be transcluded. As it is likely we will continue to have Greek subjects in new articles, it seems likely that this template may be used. It might be more usefully renamed to Request Greek . As for RS, that can be done by editing the contents of the template to mention that the Greek name should use an RS. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite if necessary; reading it, I took it to mean an editor who can find the original Greek, and (more important and harder) can enter it in WP; the second step involves at least polytonic as well as the character set, and would benefit from an understanding of the history of the Greek alphabet and language. Copying the Demotic form of a classical word is not generally an inmprovement of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Requests for names in Greek where appropriate are valid. This is a talk page template. If the wording bothers you, go ahead and edit the template. It's not protected. If you look at the code (always advisable before nominating templates), you'll see that it adds articles to Category:Articles needing Greek script or text, something that a talk page message won't do. And it's fine for that category to be empty, as it is now. It just means there are no outstanding requests. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This template might be more appropriately name Greek script to match some others in Category:Script talk header templates, but the convention is not universally followed there. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 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:Hebrew script

 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This template should be removed mainly because its text gives bad advice, since any insertion of Hebrew script ought to be based on reliable sources, rather than, as implied, based on the fact that an editor is "knowledgeable". A request for Hebrew script can equally well be inserted as a talk page comment. This template, furthermore, has been there since september 2006 and is currently unused. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a request template. If all current requests are filled, it will not be transcluded. As it is likely we will continue to have Greek subjects in new articles, it seems likely that this template may be used. It might be more usefully renamed to Request Hebrew . As for RS, that can be done by editing the contents of the template to mention that the Hebraic name should use an RS. It might be useful to mark it in blue for article pages instead of yellow, as a request template similar to expand being blue. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It doesn't seem to be in use, nor is the category which is related to it Category:Articles needing modern Hebrew script or text. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The correct use of a reliable source often requires background knowledge; here, of Hebrew points and when they may be usefully omitted. Ideally, a "please fix this" template would be unused at most times; when all the articles that currently should cite Hebrew do, we're done - until somebody notices a new article which should have Hebrew added. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my rationale for Template:Greek, above. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:52, 13 November 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 Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice

 * 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) 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks as though this could be replaced with Infobox officeholder WOSlinker (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems like it was forked from Infobox officeholder merely so that "Appointed by" could be linked to President of the Philippines, which seems rather unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has a fair amount of transclusions, so some sort of orderly replacement needs to be worked out. The main issue is that the way it's written now, any new fields added to Infobox officeholder need to be manually propagated to this derived template. By the way, it has not been tagged for deletion until I did it as I was posting here. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 13 November 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 Greek soldiers

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  05:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Only used on one article. Replace with Infobox Military Person WOSlinker (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The template is a test template.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little use, and as said above, could be replaced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant to the more generic template. PC78 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 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.

User:Execvator/Template:Over Drive character info

 * 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 wrong venue Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unused template in the 'User' namespace. Allen  for   IPv6  15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's in userspace, it's not being used outside of userspace, so no reason to delete it.  If you want to have it deleted, I would suggest coming up with a better reason, and nominating it at WP:MFD. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  04:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Close as moot. --Bsherr (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Close. Wrong venue. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 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 Retired Ice Hockey Player
<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) 08:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unused. May as well just use Infobox ice hockey player WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unused, doesn't seem necessary. PC78 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused, not really needed. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:04, 9 November 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:Minister for Finance (Ireland)
<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) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unused infobox WOSlinker (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused, no need. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused, overly specific, redundant to Infobox officeholder. PC78 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 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 Erich Warsitz
<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) 09:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely Infobox aviator would do rather than a person specific infobox WOSlinker (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Replaceable with the more generic template. Hard-coded infoboxes for specific individuals are not ideal. PC78 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No good reason for this to exist separately. Not used in any article either. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:32, 13 November 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:Electromagnetic Filed Theory
<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 Merge anything useful with Electromagnetism, then redirect. The utility of a redirect can be discussed at RFD this is not desired. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

These are unused templates that are more or less duplicates of each other (one has a typo in the title). Sending to TfD to decide about whether they should be merged and used, or if there's already a similar template out there and can be deleted. Or something. WP:PHYS has been contacted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete since unused and seemingly superseded by Template:Electromagnetism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto Crowsnest. Very strange choice of articles to put into one template... --Steve (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, it seems that most of the links are to articles on quantum mechanics. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crowsnest. Additionally, the function that these seem to be trying to perform is now fulfilled by WP:books. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it might be good to redirect the correctly spelled version to electromagnetism 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep: I agree with Christopher Thomas about the function largely being fulfilled by WP:books.  I think it is a tangential template to Template:Electromagnetism, though.  There is no electromagnetic field theory article now, but perhaps Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field can be built into an electromagnetic field theory.  If it could then I think that it is possible to link a lot of articles together with this template.  This will take some work, which is why I only support a weak keep.  On the other hand, memory is cheap, it doesn't cost too much maintenance (I think; Headbomb will know better than I), and we can wait.  TStein (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Template:Electromagnetism since that is the template proposed to supersede it. There are useful links in the mispelled version that point to background in classical mechanics and fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics. books can't provide the same function as a template which is to navigate between related articles. Diego Moya (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per Diego Moya. I've redirect the misspelled one to the correctly spelled one. They were created by the same user, who seemed to spot the error and then switch over. The creator blanked the misspelled one, and it should have been speedy deleted at that point. --Bsherr (talk) 22:49, 12 November 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:Younkers history
<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. Airplaneman  ✈  05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NENAN. Far too few entries for a navbox, none of the other stores are likely to have articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Only two blue links, so it's rather pointless. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 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:SC Cham squad
<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. Airplaneman  ✈  05:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely outdated (see here) and unnecessary squad template. Club does now play in the 3rd league (non-professional). Almost no player has an article. Leyo 08:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion, and notability is not temporary. GiantSnowman 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * notability is not temporary would be a valid argument for the club article, but certainly not for a squad template. --Leyo 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? You'd be fine if the team was still in the top league, but because they've been relegated suddenly there is no need for the template? GiantSnowman 14:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! For Switzerland I would say: Squad templates are compulsory in the 1st league, optional in the 2nd and dispensable in the 3rd and below. --Leyo 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But you've just violated the "notability is not temporary" guideline! It doesn't matter if's an article or a template, such guidelines should apply to all mainspace pages! GiantSnowman 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Squad templates do only represent the presence, while articles are also about the past. --Leyo 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens if/when this team gets promoted and, using your idea, is therefore allowed a template? And what if they then get relegated again? If they yo-yo in and out of 'notability' are we going to keep deleting and recreating? GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In principle yes IMHO. The recreation would be optional. Currently, it does not seem that the team will be promoted soon. BTW: The team played one single season in the 2nd league. --Leyo 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying we should delete a template because there is no chance a team will get promoted violates WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL...GiantSnowman 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say that. This was just a comment to show that recreation because of a promotion is unlikely. There is just no use keeping a squad template, when the vast majority of players are not notable and do not have an article. --Leyo 08:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Scottish squad templates? I.e. ? GiantSnowman 08:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not well versed in Scottish football, sorry. --Leyo 09:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this: Thank you for having created this squad template back in 2008 (when the team played in the 2nd league). But now it's simply not needed anymore. Why can't you just let it get deleted? --Leyo 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a squad list in the article. A navbox is meant for navigation, and this one doesn't really navigate anywhere. PC78 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - note, the nominator has removed players who have left the club without adding any new players, giving the (false) impression that only 4 players are signed to the team! GiantSnowman 11:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not change the situation.
 * Thank you for patrionising me. All I'm saying is that if the team yo-yos in & out of the cut-off points for template notability, the constant deletion & recreation is not efficient! GiantSnowman 12:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It could also be restored (undeleted) in such a (IHMO unlikely) event. --Leyo 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Only transcluded in two articles, where it is not useful for navigation. Both articles link to the article about the team, which includes a roster. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't very notable.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  20:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation - The main problem with this template is that it contains very few links. The Challenge League is fully pro, thus make SC Cham players eligible for articles. Should someone write these articles, a squad template would make sense, but at the moment this template is not sufficiently useful, in my opinion, to merit inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * …but the club does not play anymore in the Challenge League, but in the third tier. --Leyo 23:08, 12 November 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.