Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 19

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 page.

The result of the debate was change to textual layout and merge. While there is no consensus to keep or delete (opinions are divided quite evenly), everyone still seems to agree that a textual layout is strongly preferred (this has already been implemented), and that at most one of the two templates should be kept. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Same as below - it would be better as just a non-transcluded line of text. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:CASH, looks appealing, consistency, etc. Also easier to maintain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Circular reasoning. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Circular to below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for consistency and maintainability. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rschen and the wikiproject.Gateman1997 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge one of these templates to the other one. It does not make sense to have two templates that accomplish that same thing as one could do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's coding differences, see below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not look appealing. It breaks up the flow of the text and looks messy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same reasons as below. older ≠ wiser 14:50, March 21, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - would be better in running text than Yet Another Ugly Colored Box. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but only if formatting is removed as below. This conveys a legitimate amount of information, but putting it in a box is confusing. Ashibaka tock 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or make text-only. Currently detracts from the article's readability while dading little information. +sj + 08:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Iff kept, make text only. ^BlankVerse 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Formatting disputes shouldn't be resolved here. Let's try to reach consensus at WT:CASH. -- hike395 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that it is all text. Merge them. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 @ 20:50 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:17, 3 April 2006 (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 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus —Andux^␅ 07:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User_IIT_Madras

Template:User_IIT_Madras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The template puts a userbox that says that this user has attended this particular institution (IIT Madras). It is currently under use by only one user (Darksideofchand). I propose it for deletion. Andy123(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and substitute Delete it because it's basically an orphan because only one user is using it. And substitute it so they can keep it on thier user page if they want it. Moe ε 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just because only one user uses it now, it doesnt mean that others will in the future. It is a whole university, you know. --Shell <e> 00:51, 25 March 2006 (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 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, however; I have archived the template and it's talk page to subpages of the article talk page in order to preserve the discussions and edit history of the content that has been subst'd into the article SchmuckyTheCat 09:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hong Kong infobox

Template:Hong Kong infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It was single use. MJCdetroit 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, though we might want to be careful concerning city articles.--naryathegreat | (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  No need to be afraid, this is only concerning the country infoboxes, not the city infoboxes. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk 09:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, can perhaps be redirected to the main article. The edit history contains important information concerning the edits to the infobox throughout its existence. Such edit information is not preserved in the edit history of the main article itself. If we have to avoid it being used by any article again, we can preserve the edit history (and its talk page as well) outside of the template namespace, e.g. Hong Kong/infobox. — Instantnood 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  And per user:Cyberjunkie (cj), user:ScottDavis, user:PetaHolmes (nixie) and user:Martyman in a similar recent TfD, and also the arguments presented in a much earler TfD. — Instantnood 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that single-use templates are deleted all the time for that reason is irrelvent. Or the fact that over 130 other articles use the template without incident, as this article does now. That makes this template unused, surely a reason for deletion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Alright.. However my position, the edit history and talk pages of infobox have to be kept. Don't just copy and paste the content, and call it unused and kill it. That's not the way Wikipedia works. — Instantnood 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Move, let Instantnood have his fancy and move it to a sub-page under Hong Kong, put that blue background color on it with text that says "never use this". SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant.Roxi2 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment: As a template it might be redundant, but please take a quick glance at its edit history and talk page. They provide useful information regarding how the infobox becomes what it is now like. Moving something by cut-and-paste, and disregarding its edit history, is not the way Wikipedia works. — Instantnood 09:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note to sysop: Please kindly consider the convention on Wikipedia, that, a redundant entry as a result of merge is normally kept as a redirect, rather than being deleted, in order to preserve the edit history of the material before the merge took place. By deleting this template we're keeping the edit history and the discussion concerning the infobox away from access by most Wikipedia users. Therefore, please consider keeping it as a redirect (by whatever possible means). — Instantnood 20:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The change from this Hong Kong Infobox to the Infobox Country has caused severe technical problems and content disputes. See Talk:Hong Kong#Hong Kong as a city. The original purpose of Hong Kong Infobox is to shorten the main Hong Kong article. And now delete and subst back (Hong Kong Infobox, or even something else?) to there? Ridiculous. --Deryck C. 09:53, 31 March 2006 (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 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Puts a box saying that this user has attended this particular institution. This userbox is being currently used only by one user (Darksideofchand), and is unlikely to be used by other users. I propose its deletion. The institute in question is Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad --Andy123(talk) 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Useless. User has already had template substed onto their page, so there seems to be little need for it. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and substitute Moe ε 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per my reason regarding IIT Madras. --Shell <e> 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure and unlikely to be used often (if any more than it already is). —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 @ 20:51 (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 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was change to textual layout and merge. Same as above. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Puts a box that says "Route 86 is part of the Freeway and Expressway System, as stated by section 253.5 of the California State Highway Code." This could more easily be handled by a category, if said information is important to include on each article, and an article at California Freeway and Expressway System with a list of all routes in the system. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is needed on the article per WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning. "It's needed because it's needed." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is needed because... well how else does someone know that the route is in the system? You wouldn't know as easily as with a category. And would you rather that we went back to directly quoting the state law (that so many complained about)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"how else does someone know that the route is in the system?" With a line of text? "Route X is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System between Ducksheep and Quackbaa." More informative and smaller. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See for instance State Route 180 (California). I included the two sentences "The part east of unbuilt State Route 65 near Minkler is part of the State Scenic Highway System." and "The majority of SR 180, from SR 25 to the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park, is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, but only the piece in Fresno has actually been constructed to freeway standards." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you've interpreted the result of this debate as "delete" and started to implement your category system. I don't mind the cat but the template needs to stay. Would you rather use a template or type that long sentence, looking for the Wikisource link as well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I linked to California Freeway and Expressway System, which links to Wikisource. No reason to link to Wikisource on every page. You should actually think about what I'm saying before knee-jerk opposing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is one more click... and then a long scroll. How about no, that's a loss of info from the article. And yes, I have thought about what I'm doing here. I've had an unjust 24 hour period to do so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A long scroll... to the right? Which isn't necessary anyway, as the details would be in the article. Putting it as text with details is more informative than an ugly template box. Please stop your groupthink. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge one of these templates to the other one. It does not make sense to have two templates that accomplish that same thing as one could do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2 templates have coding differences, that's why 2 of them exist. This is due to differences at Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain more fully because I cannot see the need for two either. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you look at the Wikisource page involved, one set of articles needs an anchor, one does not. If someone finds a way to combine the two without breaking anything then I'm for it though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for consistency and maintainability. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've just checked out what the template looks like on Interstate 5 it's ugly. It should either go into the infobox on the right or in the text itself per SPUI. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A template is not needed to communicate this information. They uglify the articles they are in. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I believe these are ugly and unnecessary, and part of what seems to be a continuation of a trend to put as much article information as possible in ugly colored boxes with pictures rather than simply in running text. Furthermore, I don't agree with the template names, which are horrid. We already have too damn many abbreviations without adding more. Better template names are friendlier on the editor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but only if it's plaintext; otherwise delete. Somewhat good idea, but the pastel box and decorative image makes it look silly. Ashibaka tock 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the Wikiproject.Gateman1997 05:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or make text-only - detracts from the article's readability without adding new information. +sj + 08:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Iff kept, make text only. ^BlankVerse 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, let's please try to reach consensus at WT:CASH -- hike395 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:15, 3 April 2006 (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 page.