Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Template:Largest cities of New Hampshire

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 per this and related discussions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of New Hampshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "unused" a reason to delete a template? Could it plausibly be used some day? Looks like it could use some work, but is doing no harm. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The general criteria are linked at the top of the TfD page, and this fits #3. Given that this template has existed for a year now without current use, it is to be assumed that consensus has either been never to deploy it or to remove it from its transclusions. "Is not likely to be used" is not the same as "has no conceivable use": we regularly delete templates which have an obvious purpose if consensus is that they are not going to be deployed on the English Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of template is meant to aid navigation, not to be an extra section at the bottom of the article. It is also redundant with {{New Hampshire}} and has no additional navigational value. CRwikiCA talk 13:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRwikiCA. Redundant template that spends more time being cute than acting as a navigational aid. Reso lute 19:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Decoration masquerading as navigation, and redundant with {{New Hampshire}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not redundant to anything per my more extended reasoning at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 7#Template:Largest cities of California. This is an alternative, and useful, method of navigating between the articles about the most significant settlements in New Hampshire. That the layout of the template is not to your liking is not a reason to delete, but a reason to discuss the layout on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{New Hampshire}} and for trying to become an article rather than just a navigation template. --Polaron | Talk 04:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Imams

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) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Imams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Imam of Mosque (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Could be replaced by Template:Infobox religious biography or even just Template:Infobox person. Only 3 mainspace transclusions. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are vast numbers of imams. There is nothing about imams that make them require a different kind of infobox than other people.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've also added Infobox Imam of Mosque which appears to be similar. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That has only two mainspace transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are also redirects called Template:Infobox Imam & Template:Infobox imam which point to Template:Infobox religious biography, although the redirects are unused. And also worth viewing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 4 -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the light of that TfD, and their low number of transclusions, I'm minded to boldly replace and redirect the two templates nominated here. But I'm short of time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sahabah

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 due to enormous scope. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sahabah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not viable as a single navbox, the current version has already over 280 names and the total number of Sahabahs is in the tens of thousands according to the article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not viable and redundant to List of Sahabah. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Enough articles associated to for it to be useful to have its own infobox. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fatimah

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) 22:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fatimah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mainly an infobox, the few links under the 'Career' section are unrelated to the template's subject. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replace with a proper infobox in Fatimah, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure that articles that use it have a normal infobox. It is more useful for articles to contain information, than transcluded templates like this. The normal Wikipedia practice is useful as editors have pages on their watchlist and can monitor changes. With this kind of transcluded infobox, editors need to monitor both the article and the template.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! this template has been around since 2007 (see the first version:[1]), it connects several articles related to the subject.Kiatdd (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Abu Bakr

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) 18:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abu Bakr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is essentially an infobox, and one about the same subject already exists within the article Abu Bakr. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, there is already an infobox in Abu Bakr. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more useful for infoboxes that are part of articles to contain information, than to have it in transcluded templates like this. The normal Wikipedia practice is useful as editors have pages on their watchlist and can monitor changes. With this kind of transcluded infobox, editors need to monitor both the article and the template.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nominator.Kiatdd (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:ISCL

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 keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISCL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's unclear whether anyone used this; happy to withdraw if they are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People can just use {{Infobox school}}. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it's easy to just cut-and-paste the blank template from the documentation for {{infobox school}}, and that does not require two edits. and, there is a danger that this one will become out of sync with the version in the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it works and causes no harm. I do use it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it works and causes no no harm. I do (and just did) use it. Djharrity (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why you'd use it, but people do, so it's helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used it but it's not essential. It is a simpler copy and paste. If it's to be deleted, the pages that link to it need to be notified or fixed first depending on whether they're Template, User or Article space. Template:Infobox school should be changed and have a warning posted on it for a few days to avoid surprising any users not aware of this discussion.
SBaker43 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Miguel Cotto professional record

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 re-merging with the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miguel Cotto professional record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm fairly certain that we don't make templates for single pages; I don't see the benefit when there was a perfectly serviceable table on the article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - template is not needed as a perfectly serviceable table existed prior to the template. Not used in any other article, nor is there any forseeable use in any other article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete per Whpq. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the only templates I have made. I've done Template:Floyd Mayweather Jr. professional record, Template:Adrien Broner professional record and Template:Timothy Bradley professional record. And I do them because it stops Unregistered users from vandalizing them. So think before you act. --2Nyce (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Vandalism can be handled in other ways such as reverting, and if persistent page protection. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - But yet nobody does it. And with that said who's gonna do it? --2Nyce (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Nobody does it? Revolution1221 reverted vandalism on April 5 and a look in the history shows other editors and Cluebot undoing vandalism. 47 editors have the page watchlisted. It seems to me that vandalism is being taken care of. And BTW, a template can be editted by an unregisterd user so sticking the record in a template will not prevent vandalism. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not talkin about the page in general. I'm talking about that specific section. Some unregistered idiot did it this way [2] but nobody reverted it and I had to. And you say the template can be edited by them, but at least they don't know how to access it, let alone know what it is. --2Nyce 14:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There isn't even a need to substite as the article already had the record before being replaced with the template. Only need to undo the edit adding teh template. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well how about stop talking about it and do it. Got damn man, the least you can do is semi-protect the page. --2Nyce 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any need to semi-protect the page. You can make the request yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you believe it fits Wikipedia:Protection policy. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:James Blake singles

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Blake singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:James Blake (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:James Blake singles with Template:James Blake.
Musician is not prolific enough to justify having a seperate 'Singles' template; content is already covered in existing template. Giant Snowman 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Templates aren't large enough to justify the current situation. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:James Blake singles. Separate singles template unnecessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Template:James Blake. No need for a separate navbox for the singles. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.