Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8

Template:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball/To do

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) 04:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball/To do (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused project to do page in template space. Hasn't been updated for 3 years and there are no links to it either. WOSlinker (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Taiwanese baseball task force/To do. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created and updated once; untouched for three years. I'm not sure a histmerge is necessary. Airplaneman ✈ 04:06, 17 April 2010 (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:Arizona Derby Dames roster

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arizona Derby Dames roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Considering there are no edits since 2007, I doubt this is a current roster. But, in any event, it is orphaned. Plastikspork (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (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 MMAstats

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A now orphaned template after conversion to {{Infobox martial artist}} back in 2009. Plastikspork (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (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:Listen300

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Listen300 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ill-advised fork of {{Listen}}. ~~Used on only 4 articles, which should use the original.~~ Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnecessary fork. Even if implementing the bizzarre changes the fork incorporates was the best way to fix the problem, forking the template is definitely not the way to acomplish it. Happy‑melon 17:44, 8 April 2010 (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:FCPhelan

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only navigates 1 article. Other two links are redirects. {{Fair City}} does a better job than this one. Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (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:Demographics of Australia

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. RL0919 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demographics of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Currently, Demographics of Australia is using the Oceania template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Demographics of Australia. So material is still there for other editors to see. Okip 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - superseded by Oceania template. Airplaneman ✈ 04:07, 17 April 2010 (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:Demographics of Canada

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. RL0919 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demographics of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned sidebar navigation template, with most of the links already present in Demographics of Canada, including the linked map. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Demographics of Canada. So material is still there for other editors to see in the future. Okip 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you mean you want a workpage with this created? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and unused. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 17 April 2010 (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:Demografia/Somma Vesuviana

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demografia/Somma Vesuviana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Demografía/Villarrobledo (Albacete) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template, probably better presented as a table. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (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:Cyberspace

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, orphaned navbox Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 8 April 2010 (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:BigBrotherUKFAQ

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. Tim Song (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template. Should be put to some use or deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was created by a now banned sockpuppeteer to merely further his ownership of the article in various disputes, while displaying amazingly poor knowledge of the actual policies the 'FAQ' purports to explain. Now he is banned, I doubt anyone will miss it. MickMacNee 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Big Brother (UK) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
merge with Talk:Big Brother (UK) so other editors maybe able to use this template in the future. Okip 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging wouldn't be the best option; moving to talk:Big Brother (UK)/FAQ would allow for it to be found by the {{FAQ}} template. For what it's worth, I don't see anything in the current template which is especially POV or own-ish, as alleged by MickMacNee above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is total garbage, and stems from his odd ideas about primary and secondary sourcing, and his efforts to bizarrly try and enforce his preferred style through a FAQ. The basic fact is, the guy was clueless, he knew nothing of our policies despite his frequent protestations, and the fact he is now banned because he had to create sock-farms to support his flawed Afd rationales, hardly any of which even succeeded even with this vote stacking, shows how much he knew. Adding up numbers in a table is original research? A live feed is not a reliable source for what is in the feed? We must have a spread of sources to reliably cover what are essentially third party regurgitation of unchecked C4 press releases? Come off it. Where he mentions 'concensus' in the FAQ, he is talking about the agreement of at most two people obsessed with owning BB articles, hardly editting other topics, which is why several core concepts were lost on them. It is laughable to even think it has had a proper proof read, let alone represents any kind of consensus or verification against site wide policy. And this was a guy who was chewing out n00bs with less than 50 edits to their name, for not using cite web. He was a disaster, as is this template. It needs to be nuked from orbit. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that had been expressed in a manner which might make me take it seriously, it still doesn't appear to be especially accurate. While the comments about things being "agreed upon" are probably bogus as you've stated, there's nothing wrong with the interpretation given on the use and validity of primary sources, and the FAQ is correct in that they are massively overused for popular culture areas by editors who believe that verifiability is the only factor in including material in articles. I would further note that an editor's grasp of policy is not necessarily tied to the number of areas in which he's participated in Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If his buzzword bingo in the FAQ just sounds right to you, then he got lucky tbh. And yes, topic variety is not necessarily tied together with incompetence, but belive me, in this case, it was. Seriously, just look at Q1 - we must use more reliable sources such as the Daily Mail and Heat magazine to up the credibility of the article? WTF? Any of the garbage written in those about BB, which are most definitely not considered RS anyway, is directly traceable either to regurgitating a primary source without checking it, or spreading unchecked and unverifiable gossip. I speak from someone who saw him in action on the talk pages trying to explain his positions in detail, and I often just stood back in amazement at his lack of clue. His concerns were not to limit trivia, he genuinely had no clue when it was appropriate to use primary or secondary sources, and I am not even convinced he knew why the distinction is actually made. One of his more bizarre ideas was, that if an article contained 75% secondary sources by simply counting them, then no matter what their quality or what actual part of the article they were supporting, it was practically already an FA. He was the kind of editor who could parrot the phrases, but really had no idea what they meant. MickMacNee (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably the worst "FAQs" I have ever seen not to mention they were created by a banned sockpuppeteer whose socks were blocked today and yesterday. (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive). ShockMetric 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the fact that they were created by someone who has been banned is irrelevant as he was not banned or even blocked at the time. anemoneprojectors talk 17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he has now been blocked several times for sockpuppetry and the template is poorly written anyway. Shock Metric 17:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with that. anemoneprojectors talk 18:03, 14 April 2010 (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:24TeamBracket

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly orphaned template, which is similar to others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 8 April 2010 (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:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-Byes

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-Byes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is similar to others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 8 April 2010 (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:32TeamBracket-Compact (no Final)

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32TeamBracket-Compact (no Final) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is similar to others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (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:32TeamBracket-with-3rd

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32TeamBracket-with-3rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is similar to others. It also appears to have some alignment problems? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 8 April 2010 (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:16TeamBracket-Tennis7

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 Tim Song (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-Tennis7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is similar to others, e.g., {{16TeamBracket}}. Prior discussions about similar templates here resulted in delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't use it anymore; No other articles uses this template either. Thobiah (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (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.