Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 25



Template:Mcpusc/Aircraft specifications

 * 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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mcpusc/Aircraft specifications

Unused fork of Template:Aircraft specifications WOSlinker (talk) 17:05, 25 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 Polish politicians

 * 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 and replace it with Infobox politician or any other redirect of Infobox officeholder that fits better Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Infobox Polish politicians

Ancient template, only a single transclusion on an old user space article. Redundant to Infobox officeholder in any case. PC78 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant.  Imzadi  1979   →  09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete. - Darwinek (talk) 11:00, 26 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 Candidate

 * 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, then redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Infobox Candidate

Redundant to Infobox candidate and with very few transclusions. We try to avoid different templates that differ only in capitalisation. Moreover, the webpage field isn't needed in the infobox. We try to get external links to a section instead of the Infobox in most of the cases. Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment. As I understand it from the documentation, Infobox Candidate is meant for use in campaign articles (primarily US presidential campaigns), not biography articles, i.e. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, not Ron Paul, so it is fundamentally different to Infobox candidate. However, it appears to have been largely superceded by Infobox U.S. federal election campaign, so I would suggest a merge in that direction and perhaps making that template more generic and suitable for other political campaigns. PC78 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel very comfortable with Wikipedia "advertising" campaign sites. Anyway, I tend to agree with you. We can make clear that these infoboxes are for campaign pages only and not for biography articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at Infobox Candidate again, some of the fields there relate more to the person than the campaign, and in a few articles it is being used as a biographical infobox. My feeling is that we should replace all uses with either Infobox U.S. federal election campaign or Infobox candidate as appropriate, then delete because I don't see anything worth merging. There are only 10 articlespace transclusions, so this shouldn't be difficult. No opinion on the external link, but that's a side issue to what we're discussing here anyway. PC78 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 29 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.