Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1

Template:Female Formula One drivers

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Female Formula One drivers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to List of female Formula One drivers Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any good reason to delete this navbox. It can't be redundant to something that's not on the page. — Lfdder (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a good reason to delete this template. The list has more details about the drivers but if somebody wanna navigate between the articles of the female drivers more easily template is very useful in this regard. Minerva97 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While not entirely common, there are no shortage of female race car drivers, and I am not seeing the intersection of gender, occupation and code of occupation as notable. Moreover, three of the five in this template/list never actually raced F1. They tried, but failed to qualify. Reso lute 01:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is indeed no shortage of female race car drivers - there are plenty in rallying - but there is a shortage of female F1 drivers - there have been so few that some people believe that F1 is only open to male drivers. Giovanna Amati was the last, and her departure a few weeks before the downfall of Brabham opened the way for Williams test driver Damon Hill to show what he could do in a race. That was more than twenty years ago. But of course the door is not closed: drivers like Alice Powell (with 7 wins from 25 starts in 2013) may yet break into F1. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all but one of these articles already has a link to List of female Formula One drivers in the see also section.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the reason given for deletion isn't a valid one, and nor is having a link to the list in the article's see also section. However, there are only two drivers in here who actually raced, and Redrose's argument is based on a lot of WP:CRYSTAL in terms of future additions. I'm leaning towards keeping at the moment, more for ITSUSEFUL grounds, so it's only a weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the scarcity of female drivers, this template highlights an important minority group in this field. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:29, 11 September 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:Northwest Conference (Iowa)

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 Keep. The reasoning given for "keep" is sound, but that for "delete" isn't. The fact that the conference no longer exists is no reason for deleting information about it, any more than the fact that Julius Caesar's dead is a reason to delete the article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwest Conference (Iowa) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Northwest Conference is defunct. All teams in conference have moved to other leagues . Vycl1994 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Provides a useful historic reference for a former conference. It would be nice if the redlinked articles were created, but nonetheless this template provides valuable and enyclopedic navigational capabilities. I added the word "defunct" in parentheses to the template, so it's clear the conference no longer exists. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:32, 11 September 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:Bloody days

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) 20:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bloody days (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template without real use, only linking to other completely unrelated bloody days and not to any "real" articles. Earlier removed in 2007. The Banner talk 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this might be of use to someone trying to look up an event who remembers it was dubbed bloody and named for a day of the week, but doesn't remember which day of the week. Such a reader who can manage to get "1969 northe" or "2008 finan" into the search box would have an easier time of it than one who relies on this template and the lists of bloody events.

previous TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_9
related TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Template:Black_days —rybec 23:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really would prefer to see this kept, but per Black days, I think we probably have to delete this one as well :( — This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this to my user space. Delete if that's how similar templates have been handled; keep if people think it's useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superficial, of limited use. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it is of limited use and per deletion of black days. Frietjes (talk) 23:24, 18 September 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 indian current

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) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox indian current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox typhoon current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox hurricane current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox indian current and Template:Infobox typhoon current with Template:Infobox hurricane current.
These 3 templates do the exact same job in conveying the latest forecast information from the warning centres, as a result i propose that they get merged together and under the name of infobox hurricane current or infobox cyclone current since they are redundant to each other. Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge at tropical cyclone. — Lfdder (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{infobox tropical cyclone}} "Hurricane" is US-bias. Why choose "hurricane"? Merging to a US-regional name is clear bias. ; provide a new edit history at the new location, so that no bias survives from the regional names through the history button. -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a word of Spanish origin (Huracán); and we call them hurricanes in the UK too. It's not US-bias. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just makes things easier for us to use the most common terminology in English for them. There's no bias here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i chose to merge them under {{Infobox hurricane current}}, is because it is the most developed template of the lot and not because i have a US Bias. Now if this TFD decides that {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} is better than im happy with that.Jason Rees (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You call typhoons that hit Asia "hurricanes" in the UK? or the cyclones that hit Australia also called "hurricanes"? HK&SG English "typhoon", Australian English "cyclone" -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant that the severe weather systems that we occasionally experience in the UK are known, when sufficiently severe, as hurricanes. When the news reports on something in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, the local term is used. What I'm getting at is that "hurricane" isn't an American-English word. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:32, 4 September 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.

Comment exactly what was the outcome? Are we to suffer geographic bias by preferring Caribbean topical storm name, or do we have a neutral name? -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it really matter if it we supposedly "suffer geographic bias" by preferring a name that is used full time in 2/7 basins and has been used before now to describe systems in the Southern Pacific and elsewhere.Jason Rees (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animacy hierarchy

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, seems to be a very simple single use template, so the idea that there is code clutter is hard to follow here, especially since it isn't even used in animal (used in animacy, which is a different subject). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animacy hierarchy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content. Subst and delete. — Lfdder (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, merge with the article, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keeps code clutter out of the main article by breaking it out into its own template. If someone wants to edit the template they can visit it directly; otherwise, most editors to the animal article won't want to be bothered by arcane template code. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:26, 11 September 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:Languages of the 8th Schedule to the Indian constitution

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 September 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:14, 21 September 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:ISO639

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) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO639 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A macro from 2009 that's not seen any use. — Lfdder (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment from creator - I will endeavor to apply this template to some instances over the next day or two. If it is still considered not useful once a few instances are in use, then of course proceed with deletion (or not) based on the outcome of ensuing discussion below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - the documentation suggests to subst the template, meaning that if this is how it is used, the uses will number 0 regardless of the number of substitutions. Personally, I don't agree with the subst'ing option these days. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - archived discussion related to creation of this and functionally related templates → Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 48#Disambiguation template for abbreviations and other TLAs --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense for IATA codes; they're mentioned in text. ISO 639 codes are confined to the infobox. — Lfdder (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seen the additions you made to dab pages. I still think this template is unnecessary, and obviously less robust to anything that uses {{ISO 639 name}}, e.g. compare:
    - ''ak'' is the [[ISO 639]] language code for {{iso2language|ak}}
      ak is the ISO 639 language code for {{iso2language|ak}}
    - {{ISO639|Akan language|1|ak}}
      ISO 639-1 language code ak: Akan language

We don't need a template just to type out "ISO 639-1 language code" for us. — Lfdder (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the template should not be transcluded on disambiguation pages. WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates pretty clearly discourages such use. The current language makes even substituting the template dubious as the form is not typical for a disambiguation page entry. It's value elsewhere seems dubious. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does this do anything except provide boilerplate text? It doesn't seem to. If it converted an ISO 639 code to its equivalent name, or vice versa, that'd be useful. (and half replicate some of the other templates) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of boilerplate text is one way of providing consistency across articles of a similar type (referring to the archived discussion link I provided under FYI above). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is deleted, I will revert the edits I've done to introduce the template on a small number of DAB pages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Bkonrad and per WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates. Frietjes (talk) 23:22, 18 September 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:Capital Line

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. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Capital Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete unused template with test edits. Probably created to replace an existing navbox, diagram, or list, the creator hasn't been very vocal about his proposed changes. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Template:ETS LRT route, Template:ETS LRT future and Template:Valley Line (ETS) for related WP:RDT templates; Template:Capital Line may be intended to supplement those (all four are in Category:Edmonton LRT templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: will be a supplement to Template:ETS LRT route (as Template:Valley Line (ETS)). 128.205.48.45 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please elaborate on "supplement"? Template:ETS LRT route shows everything this template has. 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ETS LRT route should only show the basic layout, while individual line diagrams (like this one) should have the "fine" details such as crossings, adjacent tracks, etc. Useddenim (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Should" according to what? This hasn't been mentioned on Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit, and there is no mention on Talk:Capital Line. All this is is a list of stations, which can be found at Capital Line#Stations. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete enough with the endless templates. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:30, 10 September 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:Equivalent

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 overridden by policy. See bottom for my reasoning. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated here. — Lfdder (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this is functioning as a reference template using wikipedia as a reference, which isn't allowed per WP:RS. Instead all instance of this template should be replaced by the talk page template {{translated}}, and moved from the article page to the talk page. 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the template is semiprotected, so can someone add the TFD banner to it? (I've filed an editrequest on the template talk page) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Lfdder for adding the TFD banner -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per recent Tfd. Optionally replace transclusions with {{iw-ref}}. — Lfdder (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's reasoning Consensus here is quite obviously in favor of deleting, but as I understand it, we need to maintain attribution in the article itself, and simply putting a note on the talk page won't suffice. As such, I'm going to have to ignore all rules and close this discussion procedurally, because local consensus isn't allowed to overrule things such as copyright requirements. If you can show me that I'm wrong, I'll happily reclose this and begin the deletion process. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 September 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.