Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Template:List[edit]

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) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little-used hatnote which offers a slight variation on {{see also}}. Occupies a title which could be put to better use. I'd have just moved it, but the low transclusion count after many years of existence suggests it isn't really required. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:45, 22 March 2011 (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:SIM card sizes[edit]

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) 04:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SIM card sizes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sole use was on Subscriber Identity Module; has now been substituted directly into the article body. No practical reason for keeping this fairly short table on its own template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Any usage of this information is best applied with a standard table on the article, not through an unnecessary template. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. I only created the template because the same information was to appear in both Subscriber Identity Module and Micro-SIM. Now that Micro-SIM has been merged into Subscriber Identity Module, there is no need for the template any more. Duckbill (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (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:National Christian Fraternities[edit]

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) 04:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Christian Fraternities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contents are not a template. Information already present in Christian Fraternity Naraht (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused, simple transclusion of normal article text. — Bility (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (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:Liberal Party leadership election, 2006[edit]

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) 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberal Party leadership election, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Liberal Party leadership election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prime example of creeping templatitis. We really don't need a template to link everybody who was at all connected to a political party leadership race — we don't have dedicated templates for any other leadership convention in Canadian political history, and these two don't occupy some special sphere of notability above and beyond the others. The articles Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 and Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2009, which already list all of the people involved, are more than sufficient to cover the topics. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent, but leaning to delete. I can see the usefulness for this navbox, there are quite a number of names listed on it. I wouldn't say no election navboxes should exist, general elections (for example) can sometimes expand to multiple articles. I would have tested the waters with Template:Liberal Party leadership election, 2009 first, which only has five links. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2009, not enough links. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, puke. Indeed, that one has even less value than the 2006 one does, so I've updated the nomination to include them both. And it goes to prove my point about creeping templatitis, since both Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae include both of these. But also please note that I didn't say that general election boxes shouldn't exist — just boxes dedicated to a single leadership convention. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying, for 2006, was there enough coverage in the news/the Canadian population talking/in WP, to warrant a multiple article series, like a general election? I don't know, because I didn't pay as much attention to the news then, than I do now. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are separate lists for the individual endorsements and the ex-officio delegates, both of which are really bad, poorly referenced and probably unnecessary nests of permanent redlinks. This isn't the venue for discussing the utility of those lists, however; the question here is whether we really need a template to link the individual candidates to each other, when they're all already linked from and link back to the main article on the convention anyway (which applies to the shitty lists, too.)

Did 2006 get more press than 2009? As a contested race that went all the way to a real convention, where 2009 was a one-candidate formality, it probably did. But did it get more press than the most recent Conservative, NDP, PC or Canadian Alliance conventions? No, and none of those others have their own dedicated templates to link the individual candidates. The only thing that makes it even remotely different from any of the others is timing; it's the one and only national political party leadership convention which happened to occur during the "sudden userbase explosion without the quality control processes to match" phase of Wikipedia's development — so people were able to pump the article up with a lot of inconsequential detail (like the notion that every individual riding association president should have their own article), at a level which had been lost to the mists of history in the prior contests and was easier to QC as trivia in the later ones. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per above. 117Avenue (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2011 (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.