Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Langi

Not used, probably because {{lang}} does the job just as well. —Ruud 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Ruud 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per nom. duplicate work --Quiddity 10:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Redunant. --Andy123(talk) 16:44, 13 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. I am restoring it on Russo-Turkish War, where it was initally was. [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of Russo-Turkish Wars

comment. Is this material all covered (better/well) somewhere already? or could these be turned into a potential article? It looks like this is the final piece: Russo-Turkish War. --Quiddity 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be included at the bottom of that disambig page?. That'd be a simple solution.

I added it to 2 categories too, we'll see if that gets it noticed by anyone. --Quiddity 10:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link useful material, just needs to be put in more of a wiki context --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert out of template namespace. Suggest the contributors may be able to find a solution. John Reid 10:27, 15 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Browsebar

Template:Browsebar, Template:Browsebar noblank, Template:Browsebar space, Template:Categorybrowsebar.

Template:Browsebar shows up at the top of 174 pages (not counting talk), with 90% being portals. I believe that all the links in this template are not relevant in the great majority of portals, and the template is distracting (see for example Portal:Middle-earth).

A far more effective portal browser is I think the {{portals}} template whish shows up at the bottom of all portals. Same arguments apply I think to the cousins of Template:Browsebar (see above) which I also propose for deletion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting déjà vu here...MiraLuka 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deja vu indeed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. strongly agree that they are confusing and distracting. --Quiddity
Comment. I suggested elsewhere that the Wikipedia:Category schemes page be improved visually/usability-wise, for easier scanning. If so, it could be linked to from the main page (in place of the "featured content" link, which could be moved to the navbar (in place of "featured articles"). The Category schemes page encompasses/expands the content of the top row of links in these browsebars. There is also the {{Wikipediacats-flat-centred}} template, linked only at the bottom of WP:Browse. -Quiddity 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{browsebar}} but delete all others. I think this nomination was somewhat premature. I'd like to see the browsebar reformated to be portals-specific (meaning the removal of project namespace links) to assist inter-navigability (from lower-level portals to the top-level portals). {{portals}} serves a different purpose.--cj | talk 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we had this debate a couple of weeks ago i think --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep browsebar unless a suitable replacement is put forward for Portal:The Beatles. Why can't it just be modified to take any surplus links/mirror-unfriendly links out? Deletion is a bit radical for a template that's actually being used! --kingboyk 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm using it on my user page... I'll change my vote if someone suggests an alternative. The bellman 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger question is if it should be used in portals. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is a very important navigational tool. Portals aren't exactly like article space, and it is very important to be able to jump around between different portals to get a good feel of what Wikipedia has to offer. The correct solution to fixing something like this on Wikipedia is to fix it, not try to get it deleted. Look for consensus. If you can find something better to replace this template with that maintains the interconnections between portals, go for it. But don't try to delete content that is on over a hundred pages. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete with extreme prejudice --William Allen Simpson 08:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the very least until discussions at Template_talk:Browsebar have reached consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nema Fakei (talk • contribs) 02:23, April 12, 2006.
The discussion there died away, see my comments just above. --Quiddity
Keep - I agree with what Cyberjunkie (cj) states above. Sulfur 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all of them. Someone should come up with something new I guess, but these things in it's current form are more confusing to new users then that they actually fullfill their purpose of letting them browse around. It contains both "browsing" and "help" links and is used in wayyyyy toooo many pages. - The DJ 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wow, {{portals}} is ugly. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why ugly? It is short and unoptrusive, as a template should be. The link to Portal:Browse is the only important one anyway, there is no need to have all the links in {{browsebar}} on top of all portals I'd say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I use it all the time. --Osbus 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I'm sorry, but there's a lot more to the browsebar than just portals. However, if you want to clean it up, that would be fine. Some of its links are more useful than others, and I agree that it's a bit confusing. But using {{portals}} in its place is oversimplifying. Alba 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problems are many though. So many that it needs to be completely rewritten from scratch as a Context Specific portal header template. Something that actually deserves to be at the top of every portal page.
There is a lot of discussion at Template talk:Browsebar, and many of the same arguments from template:catbar deletion apply for its removal.

The Browsebar was only recently added to a number of its current locations, hence distracting a lot of people and getting it discussed a lot and nominated for deletion to re-jump start the discussion that had petered out.

It's a stuck-on-with-tape navigational device, that tries to combine two distinct content types into one template, both somewhat unsuccessfully (see prior arguments in various pages over what portals "deserve" to be in the top 8/9/10 portals and hence listed (how many can we fit in 800width? no more than present)).

However, almost everyone who wants to keep it seems to be saying that they want it as just a "list of top portals", so can we boldly remove the top line of links, and redesign the aesthetics to fit portal headers better? (disputed)

Bear in mind it was originally just a template from the 2004 Main Page design, that has spread like chewing-gum on shoes. --Quiddity 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and make portal specific per CJ. Rlevse 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's appropriate to edit templates of this nature to improve them. Do not delete. John Reid 10:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I like having it and use it, and also believe others can find it useful. - Bobet 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a replacement is created. TheJabberwock 15:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. If someone thinks that the links are useless, fix them...don't nominate it for deletion. → J @red 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comprehensive browsing options are an asset to Wikipedia. Just because some faction doesn't like it is inadequate justification for stopping other from using them. Rfrisbie^talk 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about factions here or some people impinging on the interests of others. It is a discussion on what is appropriate in a page and what not, and where it is appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that that is a rather useless if not inflamatory observation. This is hardly a controversial matter; a consensus is simply being sought. Although it may be tempting to think it in the midst of polarised userbox tfds, not every debate is initiated or dominated by factions (insofar as they can be said to even exist). --cj | talk 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as used and relevant. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss whether it should be used in portal pages. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyde Weys. Jon Harald Søby 19:40, 16 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was: speedy deleted. — sjorford (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-not-test

Delete Seems like a waste of space to me. Go ahead and get rid of it Judzillah 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted it - it was created by the author of My GF (deletions), which was speedied as {{db-test}}. — sjorford (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete Circeus 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airtd

speedy delete per nom -Quiddity 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'speeedy per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:09, 11 April 2006 (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 page.