Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 30



Template:WA Government Energy Corporations

 * 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 redirect to Template:Energy Western Australia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WA Government Energy Corporations

Unused, deprecated template. Miracle Pen (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, no evidence provided by nominator that this template is actually deprecated. There's no discussion on the templates talk page, so it's ridiculous to expect us to hunt in god knows what archive to find the discussion that resulted in deprecating this template. Instead, put this template on the four articles linked. My only issue is the title, which shouldn't use the ambiguous "WA" (which I thought was Washington State) and instead spell out Western Australia. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is deprecated by the more comprehensive Template:EnergyWA. Miracle Pen (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Energy Western Australia (which I just renamed away from the ambiguous "WA") Ego White Tray (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (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:Graphics reply

 * 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) 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Graphics reply

Isn't this template outdated?? The graphics lab has split into three workshops and each workshop has its own template like this. Roshan (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2012 (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:NPB franchise and postseason

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NPB franchise and postseason

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and unfinished....William 11:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2012 (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:Sent off 2

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent off 2

Redundant to sent off:. Only used in 1 article. DH85868993 (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Easy as that. -Koppapa (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No-brainer. – PeeJay 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. But can someone fix sent off: because it messes article alignment as discussed on the talk page. I created this template since it appears no one is fixing the main Sent off template. One95 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * sent off: looks OK to me on Win7/IE9. What OS/browser are you using? DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I misunderstood the problem. sent off:  is now fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Following corrections to Sent off, Sent off 2 is now unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (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:FurtherInformationLink

 * 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) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FurtherInformationLink

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (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:Starbox astrometry experimental

 * 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) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Starbox astrometry experimental
 * Starbox astrometry experimental 2
 * Starbox astrometry experimental asymmetric

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 07:21, 30 July 2012 (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:Union Station style

 * 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) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Union Station style

Unused. Doesn't seem to be part of a series, i.e. there are no other "Union Station xxx" templates. DH85868993 (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this is part of a series, but not "Union Station" templates. It is part of a series of formatting templates for railstations and railways. Which in turn is part of a series of table formatting templates. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I realised it was a railway formatting template, but in my experience usually where there's a "xxx style" template, there's also a "xxx color" and/or "xxx lines" and/or "xxx stations" template. That's what I meant by "not part of a series". (I concede that I could have been clearer). DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unused. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Huh, I don't know why Union Stations as a class would ever need styling. I have to wonder if it's a mistake. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a mistake; used to be used on Union Station (Los Angeles), but no longer. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2012 (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.

Lega/Liga templates
<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) 04:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lega Emilia
 * Lega Friuli-VG
 * Lega Liguria
 * Lega Lombarda
 * Lega Piemont
 * Lega Romagna
 * Lega Sud Tirolo
 * Lega Toscana
 * Lega Trentino
 * Lega Trieste
 * Lega Umbria
 * Liga Veneta

Unused. The content of each template is already embedded in the related article, e.g. the content of Lega Romagna already exists in Lega Nord Romagna. DH85868993 (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2012 (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.

Actress filmography templates
<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 Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Greta Garbo, and Lana Turner (they are pure filmography templates). Keep Katharine Hepburn (now that it has been cut down to a standard person template). Feel free to recreate the other four if there are enough articles to fill a non-filmography template. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joan Crawford
 * Bette Davis
 * Greta Garbo
 * Katharine Hepburn
 * Lana Turner

Previous consensus has been for actors NOT to have navigation templates for this, due to template clutter. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Because it has her entire filmography on it and if it stays that way it is entirely appropriate for it to be included in this nomination. If you will look at version of the navbox that Frietjes has linked to you will see a version that is acceptable. MarnetteD | Talk 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * delete, there is no reason to have an exception for one person and not others. it simply leads to too much clutter (note prior TfD for Katharine Hepburn). Frietjes (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * followup, I am happy with keeping this version of Katharine Hepburn and recategorizing it in Category:People and person navigational boxes. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest the same thing. One thing though the Tea at Five items looks a bit odd off on its own. Could it not be added to her theatre credits with the note that she is the author and not a performer. If not no worries. BTW the article itself could use some work as it reads a bit like a press release at the moment - though i know that is not what we are discussing here. MarnetteD | Talk 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * keep: All film related templates (which use a collapse feature to obviate clutter at bottom of articles) are a welcome and helpful addition in providing an instant snapshot of the careers of leading directors, stars, film series, genres, film trends and other indicators which may find agreement at WikiProject Film and among a considerable number of users. The purported previous consensus for non-creation and/or deletion of, specifically, actor templates should have a link so that we may examine the arguments put forth and the issues raised, thus gaining the opportunity to cast a more informed vote. The seemingly obvious venues for such discussions, Category talk:Film actor navigational boxes or its parent Category talk:Film templates are virtually devoid of any exchanges.  I will post notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to invite additional input.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all as per the many previous consensus on this and the clutter it creates.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous consensus. Also these are redundant to the persons filmography. We don't need that strewn throughout various articles for specific films. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete everything except Katharine Hepburn, which has enough non-filmography content to warrant a navbox. However, make clear that this does not warrant an exception from the guidelines; acting credits should not be included. Smetanahue (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Hepburn, Delete the others, the Hepburn template is completely different than the others, and shouldn't have been included in this nomination. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * why was it wrong to include this in the nomination? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Condense ~ Couldn't we do the same for Bette Davis as we did for Katharine Hepburn? Let her have a template for 'film and television credits', 'awards and nominations', etc.? Don't see why Hepburn gets to have a template like such, yet not Davis (or any other major award nominees like Laurence Olivier and Spencer Tracy, et al).--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 12:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep condensed forms of any created if a template can remove all individual acting roles and link to a single filmography article or section and still remain a useful template, it should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been meaning to come and comment here. I created the Hepburn template (I didn't know actor ones were discouraged), and although I know that doesn't give my vote more weight, I'd ideally like to see it deleted at this point. I don't fully agree with the established consensus, but a majority do so the template isn't going to survive in its full form. The "compressed" version dorsn't have much use in my opinion, it even looks a bit silly. The only articles that are really worth linking to are the filmography and awards ones, but then it would be too small. I'm not writing this with any bitterness; I genuinely would prefer all or nothing. Consensus is against actor templates so lets keep it simple and not have them in any form. -- Lobo (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2012 (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.