Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4

Template:Baby Be Mine

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 as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baby Be Mine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Malformed and unused. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing there! Sw2nd (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout slap for nominator. There was something there, a badly formed attempt at a template, but it was removed. By the editor who started this TFD. That is not the way to start a TFD, CSD, or AFD....William 13:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whap! I did not check that, but still delete. Sw2nd (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused....William 13:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. I don't do these nominations that often, so it's an easy slip-up to make. Hey, my first trout-slap (not that I ever would try for one). Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's beyond obscure. Another for the 'unjustifiably ridiculous' pile. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2013 (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 UK legislation mini

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK legislation mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of Template:Infobox UK legislation used on five pages, it's just a version of the main template without coat of arms and collapsed by default. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge and maybe add collapsible option to Infobox UK legislation. — Lfdder (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the main template. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2013 (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 wine producer

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) 18:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox wine producer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2006 but never widely used; the only use in mainspace was replaced here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2013 (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:Boston Blazers 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston Blazers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

team is not currently active, and roster is out of date. a final roster is in the Boston Blazers article, and can always be restarted if the team becomes active again. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Has one use in main namespace. LT90001 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (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:NLLplayer

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) 18:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and redundant to one of the myriad of {{player}} templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (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.

All language icon child templates

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (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:MMU Lacrosse Current Squad

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) 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MMU Lacrosse Current Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

out of date and unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (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.

Multiple lang templates

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) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-be/ru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-be/ru/uk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-cz/sk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-pl/sk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-pt/es (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-ru/uk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lang-uk/ru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's not technically possible to tag text w/ more than 1 language so these should all be deleted and the languages listed individually in articles. — Lfdder (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not quite true, since some of the selected languages are closely related, so use the same script and the same spelling for some terms. Whether these are used properly, or should be used is a different question. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete open to abuse for terms where spellings differ in the languages indicated, instead of being used for only terms where the spelling is the same in the indicated langauges. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Separate languages should be listed as such. Even where the spelling may be the same, the pronunciation may be different. Lumping languages together virtually implies that they are the same nation-states, along with other issues counterproductive to the concept of Wikipedia being a comprehensive, encyclopaedic resource. Each language should be identifiable to the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, the only way in which such templates could be justified is to create a multitude of convolutions such as Argentinian Spanish, Chilean Spanish, etc. What about variants for all of the Romance languages, Scandinavian and Germanic languages? The idea is ludicrous and serves no reasonable purpose as a 'short-cut' for anyone except a few in the know. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. LT90001 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to use two different language templates, or make a dual lang template that can take two inputs, but having one for every possible pairing is un-scalable. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this approach may be of limited use in a handful of situations, more often than not it makes more sense to list the languages separately. Inability to mark the same passage as two different languages simultaneously is also a strong argument to delete these.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2013; 15:06 (UTC)

Delete - no perceived benefit can trump the downside of a combinatorial explosion, plus special logic is necessary if automatically parsing sources of a given language etc. 219.73.122.176 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2013 (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 freemasonic lodge

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox freemasonic lodge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use on Solomon's Lodge, Savannah, can be replaced with Template:Infobox Grand Lodge or Template:Infobox organization. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2013 (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 NK division

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) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NK division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox for North Korean divisions. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2013 (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 movement

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) 18:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use on the Chetniks article; replaced with Template:Infobox war faction in this edit. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute. This will surely be recreated if deleted. LT90001 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but it would not be a good redirect because 'movement' could refer to almost anything: art movement, protest movement, etc.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to something or salt to discourage recreation. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2013 (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.