Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 18



Template:Infobox Cheerleading Squad

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after substituting. Of the ten transclusions, only five actively use the optional wrapper params. If this template were more widely used, I could see it staying, but infobox sports team does have the blanklabel/data params which can be used if necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Unnecessary wrapper of Infobox sports team. Used on only ten articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Infobox Cheerleading Squad
 * Keep wrapper - This is a perfect example why we have wrappers: the majority of the parameters of the underlying base template, Template:Infobox sports team, are not appropriate for the particular use for cheerleading squads. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With just ten transclusions, it is a perfect example of a redundant wrapper that consumes more effort than it saves. Any parameters that are "not appropriate" are optional and can be omitted from the articles concerned; as demonstrated in . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as redundant. Wrappers can be useful, but when there's only 10 transclusions, it's not worth the maintenance. ~ RobTalk 04:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (after first adapting uses) If ten pages all need the same special treatment, for the same reason, then a wrapper is useful; unlike the above commentors, I think 10 is easily a large enough number that this makes maintenance easier than harder. However, this assumes that the pages actually need special treatment. As Pigsonthewing's diff above shows, that doesn't seem to be the case for this particular template. --ais523 21:35, 19 October 2015 (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).

Collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Nov 1. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Collaboration template; last updated 2013. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Collab-bird (last updated 2013)
 * AfricanCOTW (last updated 2008)
 * MexC (last updated 2008)
 * PLCOTW (last updated 2006)
 * CurrentLCOTW (last updated 2008)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep or mark inactive/historical. All attempts at collaborative editing are important to keep a record of in case of future review/reactivation etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (arbitrarily choosing the most recent of these listings in which to ask the question): Quite a few of these old, unused templates marking defunct collaborations have been deleted recently. These frequently use dated or nonstandard formatting or are badly constructed (like this one), and are unwieldy enough that anyone trying to revive the effort would do better to create new templates. Many of them are vaguely embarrassing, left moldering on talk pages with such old dates. The associated wikiproject pages, where the actual attempts at collaborative editing happened, are of course preserved; it's just particular implementations of those attempts, unlikely to be useful in the future, that are being nominated for deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Serves no purpose at the moment, completely unused for years, and no hint that it will become relevant in the future. This can always be undeleted if need be, but the chances of that happening are tiny. ~ RobTalk 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have relisted all of these under the same banner because the original discussions all had identical keep/delete votes. The "last updated" years are listed next to the templates, since those seem to be the only differences. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2015 (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).

Template:ColtsDraft

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Unused template that is superseded by the more general Template:NFLDraft-row. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ColtsDraft
 * Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2015 (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).

Template:Detroit Pistons 1987–88 Eastern Conference champions

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. WP:G5: Created in violation of block.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Delete – Long standing consensus at WP:NBA not to create templates for historical teams except league champions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Detroit Pistons 1987–88 Eastern Conference champions
 * Delete per nomination and consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2015 (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).

Barnstar 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Nov 1. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Award
 * Award2
 * Barnstar

Propose merging.

No need for three templates. The resultant merged template should be available as a parent for a barnstar templates, in the manner of Tmbox Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It doesn't look like Award is used anywhere, so delete it and move Award2 in its place. Barnstar is a floated thumbnail, so maybe we want to keep it to separate, if people would like to maintain the choice between the two formats. Alakzi (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Award has 74 transclusions, according to this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant in other templates. Alakzi (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Worth noting that Award is meant to be substituted, in relation to the above discussion. It could be used much more widely than transclusions would indicate or even in something like Twinkle, and we wouldn't know through the transclusion count. ~ RobTalk 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Variation is the spice of life. I like both my gold star and my smiley star on my user page. -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:Commons page

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Nearly unused and superseded by Commons. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Just four transcusions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Commons page
 * Weak keep It shouldn't be transcluded: someone should fix the problem and remove the template. I'm not sure if this is really that necessary for en.wp but the fact that it's unused is actually a good thing. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment wouldn't this be Copy to Wikimedia Commons ?-- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be a version of Copy to Wikimedia Commons that's intended for things other than images (such as categories and galleries). The situation's unlikely to come up that often, but the templates need to be sufficiently different in content (e.g. this one doesn't need to have such a focus on licensing) that merging them would likely be difficult. One big problem here may be that this is populating a maintenance category that nobody's likely to know about, and as such it's not likely to produce the desired effect.
 * The bigger problem, though, comes from looking at how the template is used in practice: it's being placed, not on existing content (categories full of images, etc.) that might need transwiki-ing, but on article talk pages as a request to create a corresponding Commons category/gallery. This is something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia; it's the equivalent of implementing Requested articles via placing templates on pages with the corresponding name on Wikibooks. Uses of this template should thus probably be aimed at an appropriate project page on Commons instead (assuming there is one; I can't find one, and have asked on Commons about how this situation should be handled). --ais523 08:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: the opinion from Commons seems to be that there's no need for a process page at Commons because it would be possible to just create the category/gallery yourself, and I think I agree with that. At any rate, a maintenance category on enwiki definitely seems to be the wrong place. --ais523 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (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).

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. No opposition to the nomination. All but Spoken Wikipedia In Progress to be substituted to keep the informatoin. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Spoken Wikipedia In Progress
 * Spoken Wikipedia recording reminder - only 19 transclusions
 * Spoken Wikipedia request fulfilled - only three transclusions; two in archives.
 * Spoken Wikipedia review reminder - only two transclusions, both years old

A random sample of transclusions of the first template show it remaining on article talk pages for between five and ten years. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete, per nom's rationale. Alternatively, it could be dated and given a maint. cat., so it is removed by a bot after X amount of time has passed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional templates added. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Del all; this is just detritus from a would-be process that went extinct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment has WP:SPEAK been informed of these nominations? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would think that Spoken Wikipedia request fulfilled should be substituted -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SPEAK has been notified of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (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).

Template:Batsmen who have scored a century in all formats of cricket
<div class="boilerplate tfd 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. As a note, this template is identical to List of cricketers who have scored a century in all formats of cricket, which I have also marked as being deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Pointless template, see discussion at WT:CRIC. T20 cricket has only been around 10ish years, and as a result not many people have done this- and scoring 1 century ever in a Test or ODI is not a significant achievement. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Batsmen who have scored a century in all formats of cricket
 * Delete. Agreed, pointless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies   (talk)  11:36, 25 October 2015 (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).