Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 12



Template:Infobox male model

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)



Propose merging Template:Infobox male model with Template:Infobox model.

Only 44 mainspace transclusions for Infobox male model; in practice there are almost as many male model articles using Infobox model. There is an obvious overlap here, and no real need to separate along gender lines. All parameters are optional, so the few gender-specific fields need only be used where appropriate. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - Per nom. --Bsherr (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. In anticipation of a merge outcome, I have sandboxed the necessary changes to Infobox model at Template:Infobox model/sandbox. Once updated, Infobox male model can simply be redirected there. PC78 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 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 Kommun3

 * 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 conversion to Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  23:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

badly named and redundant to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Review - Change all transclusions to Infobox settlement. Then delete. --Bsherr (talk) 04:39, 18 September 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 neutronium

 * 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. Consensus is that this template does not properly represent the accepted scientific view. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)



Unused template that promotes the notion of "neutronium" as being a chemical element, a view that is not widely accepted. It furthermore gives undue legitimacy to the unofficial symbol "Nt", which as far as I can tell from reading Talk:Neutronium was MADEUP by a Wikipedia editor back in 2005. Icalanise (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UNDUE. The concept of "neutronium" as a chemical element of atomic number zero was proposed many decades ago, but it isn't presently considered an element by most scientists. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unused, so delete. At worse, it can be recreated/undeleted if needed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite aside from being unused, it's not actually an element in the usual sense anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:26, 13 September 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:Article Alerts/Status

 * 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 speedy delete as G7. NAC. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. Also delete Template:ArticleAlerts/Status. Arlen22 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment couldn't you just leave db-author on both for speedy deletion? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:33, 15 September 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:Stations of the railway with transfer on sea transport

 * 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) 05:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A random collection of stuff. Why the former Soviet Union, those countries are independent now. Seemingly unusable due to excessive length. Ghirla-трёп- 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Way too vague, what's "access to sea transport"? A walking transfer? A cross-platform transfer? Being in the same village? Also most of the stations are redlinks and the chart of codes shouldn't be in a template.&mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate red link farm. PC78 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 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.

Language infobox 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. I've subst'd the templates on Bokmål and Nynorsk - I'll leave it up to those more familiar with these topics to decide whether or not the infoboxes are appropriate on those pages. JPG-GR (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)



Normal infoboxes replaced with single-use templates. I don't know the benefits for doing this, but it seems quite unnecessary. Infoboxes include important facts that are part of the article, and as such should be editable by anyone without their having to figure out how to find the template page. This is standard practice not just for language articles, but virtually all articles that use infoboxes. Peter Isotalo 08:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The English language template appears to be an orphan. English language uses the standard Infobox language. The Norwegian template is used on two pages, Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk, but Norwegian language uses Infobox language. Cnilep (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I was the one who switched the use of it in the Norwegian and English language articles. I have no idea why they were used instead of infoboxes and I could not find any sign of discussion as to their introduction. The English template had for some reason been used since 2007, but the Norwegian one only recently. Peter Isotalo 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a wider consensus as to whether splitting long infoboxes to their own pages for the sake of readability is a good idea or not; all the chemical element boxes are on separate pages, but that's one of the few areas where this is common. If this wasn't put to wider discussion when these ones were split then I don't think they need to be kept around. The templates should be substituted into the relevant articles and then deleted as T3s. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The nice thing about transcluding the Norwegian template is that the infoboxes for all three articles will always be the same; otherwise, users will come along and change statistics within one of them and they will not match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why Bokmål and Nynorsk should really have the Norwegian infoboxes at all. They're really just written standards of Norwegian. Compare it with kanji, hiragana and katakana or hanja and hangul. Not really the same, I know, but still similar and no repeated infoboxes. From my experience, language infoboxes are supposed to be reserved for actual language articles. Peter Isotalo 08:39, 17 September 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:SoundGirl

 * 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. Unused within Wikipedia mainspace. Tabercil (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The band does not appear to have released any singles yet, and the template links only to the record labels and one concert tour. The rest of the pages are redlinks.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The band's article has been deleted.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:09, 12 September 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:Wikipedia_ads

 * 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 Speedy keep. User does not understand purpose of template. Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 廣告在維基百科似乎是不太好的，維基百科應該秉持著無廣告的精神. --Twhk2011 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Translated for your viewing pleasure! "Advertising in Wikipedia seems to be not good, Wikipedia should uphold the spirit of free advertising." The user does not understand the meaning of this template.  ℳ ono   06:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, even though I object to ads on a free encyclopedia. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator may misunderstand purpose? --Bsherr (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Keep, Keep!!!! WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Gurch (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep What the heck?  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:03, 19 September 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.