Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 20



Template:2013 Big East men's soccer standings

 * 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 for now Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013 Big East men's soccer standings

no citation that this will be the division alignments next year following realignment, not to mention SMU isn't in either division in the template, so it's obviously not the correct divisions entirely. Delete until the division alignments are announced, or at the very least change it so that all 17 teams are listed (these 16 plus SMU) without division alignment. Although I don't see what the point of that would be other than giving us a placeholder. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, but could be recreated once divisional alignments are announced. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment from nominator I definitely think we should recreate it once the divisions are announced. But since I scoured the internet and could not find a single source for the alignments, and since SMU is not in either division which further diminishes their credibility, I think we should close this and delete it at this point. It's been a week. Smartyllama (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (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:Smn

 * 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) 00:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Smn

doesn't work, since there is no support for this feature in the js for this Wikipedia. 198.102.153.78 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * here is a demonstration showing that it doesn't work


 * if it was working, these numbers would sort numerically. 198.102.153.78 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Using the template causes it to sort by the first digit instead of normally, which is a useful function — sometimes we want things to sort in a way that's not normal.  However, we have sort for that; this is redundant, and because it works in a different way, redirecting it wouldn't be at all helpful.  Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Nyttend says above. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy - I don't know where this is supported. If it becomes supported, it's behavior will change. It shouldn't be used until then. I doubt it will be supported, anyway, according to Nyttend's comments. PC-XT (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2013 (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:CheckUser block

 * 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; this template is not actually open to discussion as it is part of process under jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * CheckUser block

Makes a block by someone look officially sanctioned. If someone requests an unblock anyone should be able to lift it. 206.71.242.249 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep; this indicates that there's technical evidence for the block, rather than it being someone's guess. It's rather heavily used, too, with over 150 transclusions; deletion would disrupt things, so you should try to gain consensus at WP:VP/Pr to have this deleted.  If you gain consensus, it will be deleted without another TFD.  Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I also feel this should only be trusted to internal staff as it often gets abused. Vao Tv1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm notifying the checkuser noticeboard, since most people using this template will pay attention to that page. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep please see Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6. Undoing one of these blocks as an admin is grounds for a desysop - we want admins to know this, right? --Rschen7754 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Neighbourhoods of Bareilly

 * 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 Per WP:Navbox: redirect Template:Bareilly to Template:Neighbourhoods of Bareilly, rename Template:Universities, Colleges and Schools in Bareilly to Template:Education in Bareilly,  delete the rest. Ruslik_ Zero 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neighbourhoods of Bareilly
 * Landmarks in Bareilly
 * Hindu temples in Bareilly
 * Malls and Commercial Streets in Bareilly
 * Universities, Colleges and Schools in Bareilly
 * Bareilly

All but the last one of these templates concerning Bareilly (a district in India) contain an unreasonably small percentage of blue links and are therefore useless for navigation. The exception is the template Template:Bareilly but that one duplicates the purpose of the existing (and better organized) Template:Bareilly division topics. Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mixed. Bareilly should be redirected to Bareilly division topics.  Delete Malls and Commercial Streets in Bareilly and Hindu temples in Bareilly because they don't navigate enough pages.  Rename Universities, Colleges and Schools in Bareilly to Education in Bareilly and trim it down to the bluelinks.  Cut down Neighbourhoods of Bareilly and Landmarks in Bareilly so that they only link existing pages.  The education, neighbourhoods, and landmarks templates do a good job of navigating; their only problem is that there's too much unhelpful information, and trimming will reduce the noise without throwing out the navigational possibilities.  Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to keep the navigation footers for neighborhoods and landmarks. The neighborhoods template appears to have 9 blue links (which is already tiny) for 50 neighborhoods but in fact, most of these links are not to articles on neighborhoods but to the neighborhood's namesakes. Once you remove these, there are only 3 links to articles about a neighborhood. The landmarks template suffers from the same problem: at first glance, there are 10 blue links but only 4 are to actual buildings, monuments or geographical features. And even those include the airport and a research institute and there's no reason to believe that these are widely considered to be landmarks. So we're down to two legitimate links. Pichpich (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into one template. Vao Tv1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let them stay Guys You will see the blue links appear very soon as people will start making pages about their Colonies (neighbourhoods), Malls and Localities. This will sure help in the good coverage of Wikipedia about the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suneet87 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 February 2013 (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:Professional wrestling in Australia

 * 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. Nabla (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Professional wrestling in Australia

Waste of a template as none of the promotions listed as current are notable and are unlikely at best to qualify for a WP article. Not enough defunct promotions to warrant a template 121.220.107.74 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (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:Boneheads

 * 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; deleted as G3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Boneheads

Appears to be part of a truly elaborate WP:HOAX. See Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - All just an elaborate hoax.  Zappa  O  Mati   05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Category  Zappa  O  Mati   05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax, and we should consider speedy as G3. GiantSnowman 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, vandalism, hoax. Took it upon myself to CSD it under G3....William 13:44, 20 February 2013 (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.