Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 18



Template:PROFUNC

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary navbox, used only on a single page, as a laundry list of possibly maybe kind of related things. → ROUX  ₪  18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute then change into "see also" for the article. --Bsherr (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Place template back at bottom of the PROFUNC article. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert any directly related links to a see also section, then delete per Bsherr's suggestion. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:13, 26 October 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.

Angola municipalities 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) 00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

These templates became deprecated to Municipalities of Angola over a year ago. A bunch of sister-templates were deleted at the time the new one was created but these got missed, it seems. All are orphaned. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:07, 18 October 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:Leaders of Plano, Texas

 * 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  ✈  14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This template contains hardly any notable people and is therefore not required. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are too few links and as a list it is redundant to List of mayors of Plano, Texas. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:09, 26 October 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:Pruned

 * 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 Reformat as an editnotice. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this template--it's a cleanup-style template that is applied after fixes are done to an article. It seems like it would be better to have some HTML comment(s) in the body of the article and possibly some banner like this on the talk even better: an editnotice, but do we really want to tell readers that this article used to have problems? Are we going to make templates that read "this article used to lack sources" or "this article formerly used bare links in its references"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I really don't see the point. It's not highlighting an issue with the article, it's basically just saying that the article has been edited, which is something we can take as a given. PC78 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The point of the template is to save people from having to apply fixes again and again as well as to remind people that periodic pruning may be needed. This is especially the case with list articles which tend to gain items until maintenance becomes so difficult that the article ends up being deleted. Moreover, the problem with HTML comments, as suggested above, is that people tend not to read them while editing; this is especially so with lists, where people just skip down to the area where that can add a single bulleted item.
 * Regarding the visibility of the template, it can be modified, such as by making it into an edit notice template (see Template talk:Pruned). Also it's use may also be restricted to articles where pruning was required by AfD, as was the case with List of fictional radio stations. Nonetheless, I feel the visibility has beneficial to the fictional radio list-article; looking at the history, we can see that user TomCat4680 and then  himself, presumably because he saw the template and realized that the item was not notable enough for it. — Code  Hydro  16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have added a new parameter to the template, allowing people to specify the deletion discussion which caused the pruning (if applicable). I may also note that this template can be easily converted into an edit notice, so if people want to go in that direction then deletion would be ill-advised. In this case, it should be far easier to keep and modify than to delete and make from scratch anew, especially since the existing code accepts so many potentially helpful parameters. — Code Hydro  17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response If this is an editnotice, then that makes complete sense to me. It shouldn't be visible prior to editing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Edit notices would be a great way of handling things like this. Pseudo-cleanup templates aren't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin: Well, so far it seems we've decided that it should be converted into a editnotice template. If that consensus stays on the closing of this discussion, then let me know on my talk page so I can do the conversion since I am familiar with the template's code already. — Code  Hydro  16:21, 22 October 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:2005-06Gatorbasketballschedule

 * 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) 05:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Template is unneeded since it only it used in one article. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   01:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute into article. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, already there. Delete. --Bsherr (talk) 19:09, 22 October 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:2007-08Gatorbasketballschedule
<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) 05:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This template is not used by any pages. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   00:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute into relevant article. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, already there. Delete. --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 22 October 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.