Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21

[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) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and would be better off placed directly into article instead of as a template that would only be used at most once. WOSlinker (talk) 21:48, 21 September 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.
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) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject College football priority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not in use. Priority for college football articles ought to be assigned via Template:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template is no longer used. Okay to speedy by me. I created it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:39, 21 September 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.
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 after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on 34 pages. Similar to Scref, but adds a hover link to show the citation. Nice feature, but it only works for the very few uses of this template in an article and requires that the hover text be included in the template markup. The script User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Footnote popups adds this feature to all Cite references and compliant templates. This template can be replaced by standard footnotes. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:21, 21 September 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.
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) 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parks and Recreation episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

How is this useful? —Justin (koavf)TCM05:08, 21 September 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.
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) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Too many references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a dangerous road that we don't want to go down. I would rather have too many good references than not enough, and the more specific the citation the better. While loads of *irrelevant* citations are a bad thing, there's already a template for that at Template:Verify sources. Too many good citations is not a problem, and we should be encouraging the use of more citations, not less. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (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) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be adapted to specify redundant references? EWikistTalk 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that refspam has indeed been used as a tool for POV-pushing (specifically, giving undue emphasis to a particular statement by making it look incredibly authoritative), it is not at all clear that this is a specific cleanup operation such that it requires its own tag. If it truly were to be useful it should be retitled {{redundant references}} and given text such as "this article contains references which duplicate the content of existing citations" or the like. But that's awfully nuanced for a cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 23 September 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.
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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's supposed to be funny, but it's more nonsense than humor. It's only used by 5 users (1 blocked), and the creator and last editor are both blocked, so it doesn't look like it will be improved anytime soon. It also could be confusing. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete patent nonsense. How could the mouse cleaning criteria be on WP:MOS?Curb Chain (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it is nonsense. That's the point. I don't see why this needs to be nominated for deletion just because some people do not see the humor in it. Obviously at least a few people got it because it has been used. In what way is it so harmful to Wikipedia that it needs to be permanently deleted? EWikistTalk 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't have a proliferation of nonsense pages.Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. A move seems appropriate. EWikistTalk 21:44, 24 September 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.