Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Template:Badminton in Europe (category)[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badminton in Europe (category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no talk and no edits since its creation in March 2008. Also, I note that this is a navbox that links categories, which is an atypical use of a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a category in template-space. In which case, it's basically redundant to Category:Badminton by country. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (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:Associated namespace[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Associated namespace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. This does appear to be an orphan, so does anyone know why it is semi-protected with the reason of "frequently transcluded template, tempting target for vandalism"? --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know why this template is protected - perhaps it was widely used once? In any case, it no longer is, as we now have the NAMESPACE magic word which has this functionality (looks like this: Wikipedia) and don't need this. Robofish (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robofish. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2009 (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:AutoSubpageHeader[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 speedy delete by Coren per {{db-author}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:45, 6 November 2009 (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:AngleBracket[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no links, talk or edits since it was created in February 2008. Also totally pointless, since all it does is place angle brackets around text, which can be done with simple HTML codes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2009 (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:Outdent[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 snowball keep (non-admin closure). I know I voted, but this has been unanimous for a couple days now, and there's really no other possible outcome, nor reason to continue investing any effort in this. If anyone really feels otherwise they can re-open it. Equazcion (talk) 10:13, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

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

This is the most intrusive template imaginable, and it performs a function that ought to be done subtly (if at all, which I personally doubt). ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as simply disliking something is insufficient grounds for deletion. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an effective idea that commmunicates the point well, better than its textual equivalent. However, it doesn't have to be blue. Suggest making it the same colour as text to reduce intrusiveness. PL290 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ElKevbo. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's one of the most effective ways of keeping a discussion flowing that I've seen, and I too think it works better than the undent template. GedUK  14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be wrong with a small note similar to that in {{ec}} then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the styling annoys you then surely the best solution would be to come up with alternative forms of styling? I actually think this is pretty elegant; I believe that there's an eventual plan to make things like this obsolete (LiquidThreads?) but for now it serves its purpose well enough. Happy to discuss changing the output to be less intrusive if there's consensus to do that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If outdents need to be explicitly labelled and identified (and I'm not clear why they do), then how about something like: (outdent) (and yes, I know that that already exists in the form of the undent-template, and I don't see what's wrong with it. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very valid question. However, it belongs in a talk page discussion, not on TfD. FWIW {{ud}} seems to have been repurposed without actually fixing any of the transclusions (it used to be a Nissan Motors navbox), so that should be undone and existing uses of it as an unindent marker should be modified to point to this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update, I've now undone the repurposing of {{ud}} (there were still plenty of mainspace articles using it in its old form, while only a handful of pages used it for outdenting). If you want to argue that this template should look like that one did then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An excellent way to make long discussions easy to follow. Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are better -- and much more complex -- ways of doing this, but this is much better than no mark at all. (I'd prefer that six or eight tabs were collapsed to a vertical bar (recursively) but most people seem to find those hard to follow; it does allow the eye to scan down past a conversation and find the next more accurately.) htom (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And suggest early (SNOW?) close of this tfd as the notice of this discussion is appearing on many discussions and is somewhat distracting. The template is useful and elegant. --StaniStani  16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as ElKevbo says, not liking something isn't a reason to delete it. If it's thought to be to attention-gathering and intrusive (I personally have no issues with it), changes can be discussed. In any event, there appears to be enough support for keeping this that a snow close might be useful. --Bfigura (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Makes outdenting in discussions much easier to follow than any other methods; much more obvious which statement is being replied to. I don't find it obtrusive at all. I also think it's a rather ingenious use of special characters, on an unrelated note. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I took PL290's suggestion above and styled it black rather than the blue link color it had, which might help make it less obtrusive. Equazcion (talk) 19:04, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment For those who find this intrusive, why not use the alternative Template:Undent? BlazerKnight (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are two templates needed for this? Templates should not be forked for mere aesthetics. That template (which was just recreated) should be redirected here again until this is properly discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were talking about a maintenance tag I'd agree, but these templates are visual aids to be used within discussions. Aesthetics are a concern, because the wrong kind of visual could go unnoticed or disrupt the flow of discussion. As it stands, which one of these best accomplishes the goal is a matter of preference. I think each one has its uses, depending on the situation. Equazcion (talk) 09:17, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, but why is a template needed for the second one? The vast majority of instances of this kind of outdenting are manually typed - even with the existence of a template for it there were only a handful of transclusions in two years. ([[WP:INDENT|outdent]]) is pretty trivial to have a template for, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said it's a matter of preference. Whether or not a template is needed is something we probably won't be able to settle in a discussion. My opinion is that depending on the situation a visual aid can be of help (as I think that's the main purpose, rather than merely to provide a link to WP:INDENT). Equazcion (talk) 09:47, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm being dense here. You're saying one of the templates could just as easily be typed out manually? Which one? Equazcion (talk) 09:53, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    I'm saying that in practice, editors who use the "discrete" style almost all do it by simply typing out "(undent)" rather than using the {{undent}} template (which adds a fairly pointless link at the expense of being two characters longer). In the two years that {{undent}} existed, it had less than ten transclusions. This suggests that there is no need for it to recreated as a template, as it has little value over simply typing out the text and it appears that basically nobody used it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a fair point, I'm just not sure it has anything to do with this particular deletion discussion. Equazcion (talk) 11:24, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it shows that as people seem to have no problem typing out "(undent)" themselves all the time, and yet there was a template for that function which nobody used, it indicates that there is generally widespread approval for the formatting of this one. But yeah, mostly off-topic: I would just rather we had only one template for this purpose, rather than having people forking it because they don't like the styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Dislike Template:Outdent? Don't use it, and apply the change AJCham suggested to your .css page. Want a template that does the same, but less intrusively? Use Template:Undent; I know I'm going to. Don't see why either template needs to be deleted... BlazerKnight (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Great for long discussions with newer editors. The self-explanatory, minimalistic 'graphic' that links to Wikipedia:Indentation#Outdenting is just ideal. Congrats to whoever created it. CWC 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful for keeping track of a discussion. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those who dislike this template, either aesthetically or functionally, can now choose to hide it from view by adding span.outdent-template { display: none; } to their monobook.css (or equivalent if not using the monobook skin). AJCham 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until there is a technical solution for threading long discussions, this is useful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2009 (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:OtherusesAlias[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) 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This hatnote doesn't do what other hatnotes do - it basically says that "there is an entirely unrelated subject which doesn't share a title with this article, but it could theoretically share a title with this article". We don't need a hatnote for such situations per WP:NAMB, because there is no ambiguity related to the page the user is actually on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, redirects easily cause this confusion. Go to article ABC, a common term which redirects to XYZ. The main article for XYZ may need a hatnote for those looking for ABC, if there are other uses of the term ABC. Other hatnote forms do not work well for this. Personally, I consider it a flaw in the redirect system, there ought to be a way to add notes that are specific to the redirected title alone. Dovid (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what {{redirect}} is for. I've yet to see any use case which requires this template over the existing variants of that template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to other disambiguation hatnotes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • thumperward's original argument contradicts his later argument and that of RL0919. Dovid (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't. My nomination deals with what the template actually says: my reply to you deals with what you have interpreted the text to mean. That those two things are contradictory is part of the problem, but regardless at least one of these two things is true: either the template is redundant to the existing hatnote templates, or it is entirely unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems like a kind of 'backwards disambiguation template', which is a bad idea. For example, let's say we have an article called Qatar Xylophone Jamboree, and a disambiguation page QXJ listing it and other things known by that acronym. In that case, we should link to the article from the disambiguation page, but there is no need to link to the disambiguation page from the article - except when the article is the primary use of the phrase, and it redirects there. We already have templates for that; this one is for something we don't do, and shouldn't. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Don't do and shouldn't' is a policy question,not to be decided here. Dovid (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Robofish. GlassCobra 23:17, 16 November 2009 (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:Suppression[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consists of "Empty Transferred to another page". Used on a talk page in 2004 and created by an IP in 2005. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:47, 6 November 2009 (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:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT[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) 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overtemplatisation. 1. It's actually just a Minor Premiership squad, not a team - it's a listing of all players who played at least one game in the 1997 season for St Kilda. 2. Minor Premierships are not considered that important in Australian Football - it's the league leader before the playoffs - the team that wins the Grand Final (and this one didn't win that) is the season champion and is the one that people remember. 3. It's one of many new templates created by this user, and despite discussions here and here, he has persisted with implementing these navboxes against the general consensus.The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Template isn't needed and is not useful to the reader. You won't see a player cite a minor premiership as a career highlight nor is it likely to be listed in a biography as one of their achievements. In the AFL it's premierships (season champion) that matter, not minor premierships. Jevansen (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unnecessary template. Does not assist readers to navigate through related articles - it's unlikely they'll be interested in other players in that minor premiership, because no one cares about minor premierships. Somno (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There a three major trophies that are available for all teams in the AFL to win. The Premiership is the most important. The pre-premiership-season cup most people are aware of. The Minor Premiership is the other. There has been a trophy awarded for the Minor Premiership (qualifying for the finals series in first position) since 1991 called the McClelland Trophy. A template is appropriate for a trophy like that that can be seen in the trophy cabinet at the footy club. BrianBeahr (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009
    • There is one major trophy, the AFL Premiership Cup. It's called a minor premiership for a reason. Jevansen (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Minor Premiership Trophy is called the C J McClelland Trophy. It is awarded to the team that qualifies for the AFL Final;s series in First Position as minor Premiers. People cant sit around pretending our club hasnt won the trophies our club has won. BrianBeahr (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No one is pretending anything, other than you pretending that you own every single St Kilda related article. Have a look at one of the other templates for deletion on this page... Someone else thinks that we shouldn't have current squad templates! All we are doing is trying to limit the number of navigation templates to those that are most important. I am doubtful, but will accept, that the Pre-season Cup teams are really notable enough for a navigation template - of course I agree to them being mentioned in the text, but the team list isn't really that notable (but you shouldn't have named them as you did - should have had "winners" or similar in the title). In the AFL 2005 official stats guide, Finals, and mainly Grand Finals is given an entire 40 page section. The Dr W C McClelland Trophy (not C J) is listed on the bottom half of page 738, just under the round by round ladder positions from 2004. It is not mentioned at all in the front 26 pages which cover all of the major awards of 2004. It is a minor award, that belongs in a text mention, not templates.The-Pope (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The club won its first McClelland trophy for the 1997 Minor Premiership.

It is notable as one of the three major trophies each year (not the major prize).

You cant pretend that our club has not won minor premierships and AFL cups. the people have copies on dvd and video.

BrianBeahr (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per arguments made in initial proposal above.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeff79 and Jevansen. GlassCobra 23:16, 16 November 2009 (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:Military ranks by country[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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military ranks by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very wide topic. I think it can be compressed into a single navbox. Redundant with List of comparative military ranks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Certainly, a wide theme, but I do not represent, as it to narrow. The only thing that it would be desirable to offer, use navbox with collapsed blocks. So the countries will be listed within continent.--Andrey! 11:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be an entirely appropriate navbox linking the articles on military ranks within various countries. The naming of the articles is not consistent, and in a few cases the material is a section within a larger article, so a navbox is particularly helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ties together articles relevant to the subject of the navbox. Seems completely appropriate. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (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:Diamonds squad[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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diamonds squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There shouldn't be navboxes with "current squads"... Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Why shouldn't there be navboxes that link related people?The-Pope (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why exactly? There appears to be significant precedent to indicate the use of such templates is a common practice. Note the huge number of current squad/roster templates for football, American football and basketball, for example. Why is it different here? AJCham 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe this should be kept. Firstly, the Diamonds are world number one in netball. There is also a Silver Ferns squad template who are world number two of the same sport. Also, There are other templates that also have this kind of template in other sports as well. Willbender (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (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 Ballet Dancer[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 and merge useful features with {{Infobox dancer}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ballet Dancer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put in article when it will be ready. I will make it. Article to apply - Galina Ulanova.--Andrey! 09:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the existing {{Infobox dancer}} wouldn't work for ballet dancers? It appears to be used for some ballet dancer articles already (e.g., Pierre Vladimiroff, Jock Soto). --RL0919 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make this with a view to using it in articles about ballet dancers, so that it had more relevant information than the regular dancer infobox. Unfortunately, I realised I didn't know how to make it into a proper template, so abandoned it. If someone could help me make it into a proper template, I have a huge list of articles that I could insert it into. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what you've done so far, I think you should work with someone to expand {{Infobox dancer}} rather than creating a separate template. Most of the ideas you have for fields (nationality, training, etc.) could be applied to other types of dancers. If there are any fields that are entirely ballet-specific, they can be described as such in the documentation. That way we aren't multiplying the number of infoboxes unnecessarily, and articles on other types of dancers can use the improvements also. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we already have a dancer infobox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Crazy-dancing, please list that you wish to add in the template. I do only small editings in templates, but can be, together we will write DOC, on каторому someone can realise our ideas.--Andrey! 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, eat a huge field for application if it will be possible to prove features.--Andrey! 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would be better to modify {{Infobox dancer}} to cover ballet dancers than start a brand new template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to modifying the existing dancer infobox, however I do think that mine is more relevant to the majority of dancers than the other one, despite it being focussed specifically on ballet. Oh and the other one looks ugly on a page too, but that's just my liking pretty visual styling ;-) and even if we do modify the existing dancer template, I would like to be able to set the box colour to match the blue of the ballet portal. Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A considerable amount of effort has gone into ridding infoboxspace of the random use of colour: I'd prefer for that trend not to be reversed lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, in that case I have no objections to the ballet box simply being deleted, with an agreement that we pursue the redevelopment of Template:Infobox dancer. It's a shame that we can't incorporate different colours for different dance genres, but I can grudgingly admit that making Wikipedia look pretty is not the number 1 priority hehe. Crazy-dancing (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is actually put to use. I agree that adding extra fields to Inofobox Dancer seems to be a better idea that popularising this template in any case. Robofish (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to {{Infobox Dancer}}. GlassCobra 23:15, 16 November 2009 (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.

Idw[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 no consensus to merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Idw-commons with Template:Fdw-iw.
Propose merging Template:Idwc with Template:Fdw-iw.
Template:Idw-commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Idwc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fdw-iw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found these nominations in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. This proposal was explained on Template_talk:Idw-commons. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 6 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_6&oldid=1146551679"