Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

April 20[edit]


Template:Infobox classical composer[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 speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. You can not keep nominating an article until you get the result you want. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contested speedy. Improperly recreated after deletion as unused. Single instance replacing {{Infobox musical artist}} for a bogus reason of "Replacing incorrect infobox" has been reverted (by me). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • This box was the result of massive discussion and eventual consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC, so keeping the box is obviously the right thing to do. Previous deletion was improper -- no one informed the project of the deletion discussion -- and now we wish to use the box we designed. This was a compromise painfully achieved after a long and tedious debate. None of us want to start it again. The problems with the bigger infoboxes are explained in detail in the RFC and in the talk archives. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The appropriate content is so different that the templates should be kept separate. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antandrus. Opus33 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antandrus. It is worth noting that the nominator's consistent efforts to delete this infobox, and his efforts to introduce other infoboxes into articles in complete disregard to an extensively discussed consensus, borders on the disruptive. --Ravpapa (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antandrus. Nominator is clearly out of line, and trying to pull a fast one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; even those opposed to infoboxes on principle recognize this box as the product of a workable compromise. If the nominator is upset that it has not been sufficiently used, he is free, with the blessing of the consensus, himself to apply it rather than trying to force all articles into an inappropriately worded procrustean bed. Drhoehl (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Disingenuous exercise of gamesmanship by nominator.--Smerus (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-meaning, but having an infobox at all for composers is progress and it would be best not to upset what little compromise has been fought for until the composers project (which has been infamously hostile to them) gets used to the idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is the fourth time that the nominator has attempted to delete this template: the first time when the template was first created, the second time a week ago, when he made the nomination without notifying the creators and deleted it almost without discussion, a third time when he nominated it for speedy delete after the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper, and now this time. Is it possible to ask or compel the nominator to refrain from repeating this futile and time-wasting exercise again and again? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Apparent canvassing here and also here; and that many of the above comments do not address the fact that this template was at last deletion unused, and its redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call that canvassing. The message does not explicitly state "please vote to keep". Maybe the wording could possible have been more neutral, but I wouldn't say the wording is excessively biased since it appears that this is in fact your fourth time trying to delete this template, this being the first time where discussion seems to have been asked for. Brambleclawx 19:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the decision made at the RFC mentioned by Antandrus. If you wish to dispute the conclusions of this RFC, I would suggest a discussion seeking consensus first, since these conclusions were designed to meet the opinions expressed by the (numerous) participants at the RFC. Brambleclawx 19:37, 21 April 2012 (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:Qrpedia-adverted[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) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qrpedia-adverted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Good faith creation, but a bad idea. Such notices belong on talk pages, not in articles, and we already have {{QRpedia}} for that. "Adverted" is not an English word. I write as someone closely involved in QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree with nomination - good idea but already done. Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't use ambox templates, or indeed any articlespace templates, for this purpose. For subjects with a specific link to QRpedia we already have the category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (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:Bururi Province[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 keep now that they have been expanded and cleaned up. It's amazing what a TfD nomination can do for progress. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bururi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cankuzo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cibitoke Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gitega Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Karuzi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kayanza Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kirundo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Makamba Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Muramvya Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Muyinga Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mwaro Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ngozi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rutana Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ruyigi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all empty and the author has no plan to expand them (see here). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all All are now in use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not whether or not they are in use, but the fact that they lack meaningful navigation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the problem; the links down the left side are useful navigation. The problem is that they have raw "[[]]" in them, which should not be seen in articlespace. I would suggest that they be kept and the [[]] coding removed until such time as content is available to fill them up. Blofeld tends to know what he is doing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The body is intended for articles on villages... Like Template:Bubanza Province♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've removed the groups and made them all into simple lists (apart from the first one). Does this look better now? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily yes. But the idea was to add the villages like in Template:Bururi Province.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to go back to the other format when the village data is ready to be added. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2012 (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:Wormhole[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; deleted by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

there is no way this is working since the template {{noinclude}} has not existed since 2006. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this also uses a helper template, {{Wormhole/core}} -- 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of what it does, it is broken, and just has been forgotten. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't figure out what this is supposed to do, but since it relies on a decommissioned template, get rid of it. Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 21 Apr 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:GP2 Asia Series teams[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, as it is unused. If someone wants to create one for navigating 2011 team articles, then feel free to do so. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP2 Asia Series teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The GP2 Asia Series folded, so now template is useless. Cybervoron (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it can be converted to navigate all teams from the 4 seasons it existed. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2012 (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:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings[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) 22:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tagging this template for deletion because of the following reasons (as per WP:TFD#REASONS, among others):

1. The template is not used...and has no likelihood of being used because the template subject in question (ranking of universities) changes every year and rank order is not reflected rendering the template being defeated of the very purpose it was created. 2. Notability. No substantive reason can justify why such template is needed. The template does not reflect rank order and if it does, why should such warrant a template? Xeltran (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a particularly useful (nor stable) way to navigate from university article to university article. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2012 (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:Ctitle[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) 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If this ever worked, it seems to not anymore. Its documentation says it changes the page title, but it actually just inserts a second title below the actual one (at least in my Vector tests and another user's Monobook tests, see WP:VPT#Ctitle). I can't see this being of much if any use. Currently the only transclusion is on the author's user and user talk pages. Equazcion (talk) 04:11, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

PS. It appears the Vector issue may be due to my testing on user pages, when I have a script installed that adds user info to the page title. In article space this seems to work, though for people who might have scripts installed that do something similar in article space, they'll experience the same issue. Anyway, this template seems to work less reliably than {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (the monobook issue still stands and is apparently not the result of a script conflict), and the features it adds are of marginal/specialized use. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems to work okay here from my experiments, but this doesn't serve a productive purpose on the encyclopedia (another pointless userspace bauble) and in any case is redundant to the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. At any rate the author has forked it into userspace, which is the only place this is acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does not help appearance, and it's solely meant to enhance a page's appearance. Look at it on an old revision of reCAPTCHA, from just before it was removed: while the nominator says that it appears below the actual title in Vector, it appears above the actual title in Monobook. Note that the page has been edited only once after the diff I linked — the edit was to remove this template. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; although it seems to work OK in Vector, it doesn't in Monobook, where it hides all tabs except the "article" one, and also hides all the links upper right such as "my contributions", etc. If this breaks the display in a popular skin (albeit not the default skin), it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I admit I don't think this TFD was necessary or the best way to handle this. Since the template was only used on one article where it was quickly removed, but was also used on the user's user pages, it seems to me asking the user if they'd accept userfication and then if they did (which I suspect they would) moving it and deleting the redirect would have been the simplest option. But since the creator was the only substanial contributor and has evidentally forked the template now, it doesn't really matter I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_20&oldid=1142562963"