Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 23 January 25 >

Contents

[edit] January 24, 2006

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) 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PAGENAME

Template:PAGENAME (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Vote withdrawn (see below) — What exactly is the point of this template? To use it, you have to type "{{PAGENAME}}". The content of the template is "{{PAGENAME}}" so it gives you the name of the page... but "{{PAGENAME}}" is a variable, so that's what typing "{{PAGENAME}}" does anyway... it just substitutes the variable in. Why is a template necessary? Gurch 22:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • (vote withdrawn by poster) I worry about possible confusing consequences of deleting this. Perhaps this "template" is the variable, and be complicated workings that we can't see, it has more non-wikipedia code that creates the variable in the template. I think we need someone who knows the internal workings of wikipedia well to enlighten us. -Xol 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was created on December 23rd, so I doubt it's too important. Delete. JYolkowski // talk
  • Delete. Good spotting; let's delete this confusing {{PAGENAME}}. -Xol 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, redirect to wherever those meta-variables are explained in the first place. That would be least confusing to newbies. Radiant_>|< 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The varible takes presidence, you can't really even use it as {{PAGENAME}} doesn't even link to this template. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. You can transclude it with {{msg:PAGENAME}}, but why would you want to? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Sorry about this - I've just realised something (should have checked before I listed it!) Numerous user categories, such as Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom, seem to be instructing users to add this to their userpages: [[Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] Exactly why they can't just use the meta-variable rather than subst:ing I don't know. BUT it's probably a good idea NOT TO DELETE until we know why, or until these are changed, as anyone following these instructions will get a red link instead. -- Gurch 13:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No they won't. Variables can be substed just like templates can. Try it with {{subst:NAMESPACE}}, for example. —Cryptic (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • after Edit Conflict Don't Panic: in actual fact, SUBSTitution works just fine with the PAGENAME variable, see here for proof. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I change my vote back to Delete (just to make it even more confusing...) -- Gurch 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: pointless duplication of existing variable, simply causes confusion (as amply demonstrated immediately hereabove). —Phil | Talk 13:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Help:Variable per the principle of least surprise. People who see "{{PAGENAME}}" in wikitext and blithely go to Template:PAGENAME to look at the source as they would with anything else between double-braces shouldn't get a "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" message. —Cryptic (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree in principle, but will that even work? What takes precedence in the software, global variables or templates? I just don't wanna break the real variable, although this is a helpful suggestion. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It works just fine on my local Mediawiki installation. —Cryptic (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to prevent confusion with the real variable. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is completely useless--Wikipedian DOG 10:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Cryptic. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:41, 27 January 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) 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Votebox

Template:Votebox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Soliciting votes using a template is not a good idea. Currently unused. Related templates are Template:Ivote, Template:Rvote, Template:Yesvote, and Template:Novote. Sango123 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Obliterate all five. Solicited votes are the enemy of consensus. —Cryptic (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from the fact that the votes should not be solicited (an obvious reason for deletion), who would need a template to do this - seriously? -Xol 22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This doesn't appear to be a solicitation for votes but rather a "tool" to "simplify" voting processes on Wikipedia. It is not useful as it is at least as complicated as typing "Weak Support" or "Redirect" or "Strong Delete". Just to clarify the usage. - Cuivienen 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've speedied the "I vote X" templates since they're substantial recreations. Delete the votebox. Radiant_>|< 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unhelpful and has been mentioned so many times, we don't vote, we discuss. More confusing/longer than its worth, and encourages parrotin.

-- nae'blis (talk) 17:54, 31 January 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USRepsub

Template:USRepsub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — I made this. I don't even remember why. —Mark Adler (markles) 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this qualifies for a speedy delete if the author wants it deleted and no pages link to it un subst-ed (and I don't think it really qualifies for subst-ing anyways). -Xol 22:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, not used, author request. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:26, 25 January 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USCongDistStateMT&action=edit

Delete — I made this template by mistake. —Mark Adler (markles) 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(ps- I couldn't even get {{tln|USCongDistStateMT&action=edit}} to work on this tfd page! Sheesh, what a mess.)

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. -Splashtalk 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Language

Template:Infobox Language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete or Userfy — This template is redundant. It was created by Netoholic to replace template:language (the community-agreed standard), and has continued to be developed in opposition to it. The reason given for it is AUM, but neither is that 'policy' clear, nor does it mandate this approach. Gareth Hughes 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - all one needs to do is look at the confusing source for template:language to see something needs to be done. The main reason for the confusing code is the beliefe that all three language types must use one template. You can see by looking at the individual sources of these templates that they are designed for the specific needs of each language type. This isn't about AUM, it's about practicality. -- Netoholic @ 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • hoho, listen. endless fights about AUM and now... , I can't believe it. And I thought he had at least a good aim in mind all the time. Seems I was wrong and it was more about pushing for itself at the end.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CSS hack this template is based on does not work properly on non-CSS enabled browsers and screen-readers (Lynx, PAWS, et cetera). Also requires configuration changes before it will work on foreign language wikipedias. These issues have already caused problems and will continue to be disruptive going forward. CSS hack based templates reduce the accessibility of Wikipedia and should be removed. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Radiant_>|< 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is unnecessary now that Brion has clarified the position on meta-templates. Community consensus seems to favor the Template:Language version that uses meta-templates, so as long as that won't break the servers it should be used, and this fork should be removed. Hopefully, we'll get real conditionals soon so that the code can be cleaned up a bit. Brion's statements in this regard sound promising. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Garzo. --Khoikhoi 00:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Angr 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: template forking is evil; besides, looks like someone has come down with a server case of WP:OWN from a swift perusal of the edit history. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, template forking is evil, matters were rushed unneccesarily and abrasively. — mark ✎ 09:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Whimemsz 00:24, 29 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Conlang

Template:Infobox Conlang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete or Userfy — This template is redundant. It was created by Netoholic to replace template:language (the community-agreed standard), and has continued to be developed in opposition to it. The reason given for it is AUM, but neither is that 'policy' clear, nor does it mandate this approach. Gareth Hughes 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - all one needs to do is look at the confusing source for template:language to see something needs to be done. The main reason for the confusing code is the beliefe that all three language types must use one template. You can see by looking at the individual sources of these templates that they are designed for the specific needs of each language type. This isn't about AUM, it's about practicality. -- Netoholic @ 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CSS hack this template is based on does not work properly on non-CSS enabled browsers and screen-readers (Lynx, PAWS, et cetera). Also requires configuration changes before it will work on foreign language wikipedias. These issues have already caused problems and will continue to be disruptive going forward. CSS hack based templates reduce the accessibility of Wikipedia and should be removed. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Radiant_>|< 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Garzo. --Khoikhoi 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Angr 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: template forking is evil; besides, looks like someone has come down with a server case of WP:OWN from a swift perusal of the edit history. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, template forking is evil, matters were rushed unneccesarily and abrasively. — mark ✎ 09:03, 27 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Sign language

Template:Infobox Sign language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete or Userfy — This template is redundant. It was created by Netoholic to replace template:language (the community-agreed standard), and has continued to be developed in opposition to it. The reason given for it is AUM, but neither is that 'policy' clear, nor does it mandate this approach. Gareth Hughes 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - all one needs to do is look at the confusing source for template:language to see something needs to be done. The main reason for the confusing code is the beliefe that all three language types must use one template. You can see by looking at the individual sources of these templates that they are designed for the specific needs of each language type. This isn't about AUM, it's about practicality. -- Netoholic @ 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CSS hack this template is based on does not work properly on non-CSS enabled browsers and screen-readers (Lynx, PAWS, et cetera). Also requires configuration changes before it will work on foreign language wikipedias. These issues have already caused problems and will continue to be disruptive going forward. CSS hack based templates reduce the accessibility of Wikipedia and should be removed. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Radiant_>|< 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Garzo. --Khoikhoi 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Angr 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: template forking is evil; besides, looks like someone has come down with a server case of WP:OWN from a swift perusal of the edit history. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, template forking is evil, matters were rushed unneccesarily and abrasively. — mark ✎ 09:03, 27 January 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 USERFY to TenOfAllTrades. Doesn't seem any point userfying to an editor who, though asked, didn't ask for userfication to his space. -Splashtalk 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Markups

Template:Markups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. It's a box with a bunch of characters, and their Unicode values. Appears to be unused. dbenbenn | talk 02:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless the user can explain some special purpose, etc. -Xol 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy: I've notified user:Xiong who—although he says he's gone—is still puttering around and might take an interest if prodded politely. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I can see this being a very handy little toolbox for editors to have in their userspace somewhere as a reference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 25 January 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 USERFY to Minister of War. Doesn't seem any point userfying to an editor who, though asked, didn't ask for userfication to his space. -Splashtalk 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Helpbox

Template:Helpbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — The purpose of this template is simply to put a link to the talk page on a template. Of course, there's already a link to the talk page at the top of every article. It's only used in 1 place, Template:Markups, which will be nominated for deletion above. dbenbenn | talk 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) dbenbenn | talk 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, (Vote removed by voter: Delete), unless the user can explain some special purpose, etc. -Xol 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy: I've notified user:Xiong who—although he says he's gone—is still puttering around and might take an interest if prodded politely. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy. The box is supposed to be included in templates, linking directly to the Talk Page from any given page which holds the template. This is quite useful actually; usually if you want instructions on the template, you type in "Template:YourTemplateHere", and then click to Talk. This direct link would have come in handy plenty of times for me! Having said that, its not yet implemented and needs to be put on a LOT of templates. Hopefully Xiong will come back and complete some of his work left here (and I might lend a hand). Until then, Userfy this. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just click on the Discussion tab at the top of the page... it goes to the same page. -Xol 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, if you are on the actual template page. If you see the template used in another page, you have to go to the template page first. This links immediately via the template. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep Sorry, I don't know how I missed that in your last paragraph. I now vote to keep it. -Xol 23:34, 26 January 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.