Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 20

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 debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not an infobox, not in use. Looks like an experiment. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as test page. Perhaps a G2 speedy? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:45, 24 July 2008 (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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not useful in any way. States that a link redirects to the page that is linked from. There's no point in redirecting a reader to the top of the same page in the first place, and strange to explain that that's what is about to happen (just don't put in a useless link or else create a stub). NJGW (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as i suggested at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Template:Rhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. It is a note to remark the page contains some text that can be a new stub or article and it is a redirect with possibilities . Important article have been first created using this template. --Mac (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  reply But why wouldn't you just create the stub? Taking the time to create a redirect as well as a link that goes back to the top of the page seems like a waste of time. NJGW (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The stub can be too small and can be deleted. One can add more text to the section and later split it into a new article. --Mac (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, if a stub gets deleted it's because it's not-notable. NJGW (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• reply. More importantly, we generally only leave content-issue notices visible to all-readers. Editorial notices (missing date of birth, etc) belong in hidden categories or on the talkpage. See Wikipedia:Talk page templates: "Talk page templates contain information intended for editors, not readers." and WP:SELFREF.

  The redirect pages should probably just be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} instead. (?)

  If it is kept, it should be properly tagged as a noprint-selfref (I forget how exactly, atm). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  a) This is similar to {{Splitsection}} .--Mac (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  b) {{R with possibilities}} is used in the redirecting page and {{Rhere}} is used in the redirected page (destination page). --Mac (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  c) No problem. Can you add this tag to the template ?. Thanks in advance. --Mac (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this and splitsection is that the latter is a clean-up tag (and not one that I've seen in use anyway...). In contrast, rhere is a suggestion to create an article. There sort of thing already has it's own project, and as a named account you can do it yourself. I know you're trying to create better content, so I think you would be more interested in creating helpful stubs rather than creating ultimately unhelpful links (such as "this link goes back to the top of this very same page"). NJGW (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it gets very confusing for readers. - Nabla (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confusing template. I can't even figure out with what it's supposed to mean. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:28, 30 July 2008 (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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Two other uses b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant to {{Two other uses}}. — PC78 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator of the template cites bugzilla:5744 and bugzilla:6455, both of which are still open. At the same time the template does not appear to be used. Where these bug work-around put in place in the other template, or perhaps it turned out to not be a major issue? -- Ned Scott 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (leaning on delete) don't know about the bugs. But the templates' code is almost equal, only resulting that this b-version does not link to the target articles. See the exemple at my test page. So probably it is OK to delete. - Nabla (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to {{Two other uses}} which seems to work just fine despite the bugzillae cited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:29, 30 July 2008 (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 debate was not a deletion discussion, the merge discussion better take place at here where the nominator also started it. I took the liberty of copy/pasting this discussion to there - Nabla (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:US ANG by state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US ARNG by state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm requesting a merge because I believe that these templates would work better as a single template. They share a similar structure and topic, and many of the links are matched between the three individual navboxes (meaning that all three link to the same article for a given state). it saves space and aids navigation to have them consolidated. I've also posted my suggestion here. bahamut0013♠♣ 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because the army and air National Guard are two different things. We've split many National Guard pages based on this. I can see why you want to merge the templates but if we give it time, people will split the pages into their respective locations. We probably should put a bulletin out there notifying people of this because otherwise this discussion might lead to something not being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the army national guard template is more like the national guard one, since when you say "National Guard", you usually mean the army portion. They could be merged but it probably won't solve any problems and someone is bound to disagree with it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would definately support having two navboxes instead of three. If, as you say, the NG articles are being split into ArmyNG and AFNG, then it would eventually happen anyway. Looking at Template:US ANG by state, I don't see too many states without an AFNG article, and most of the links in Template:US ARNG by state show that they also have thier own articles as well. That alone tells me that the Army and the Air Force navboxes can stand on thier own without a third generic NG navbox (Template:NGbystate) that mostly just links to articles that act as disabmiguation pages (like Alabama National Guard).

I invite you to invite as many editors as you like, too many TfD discussions stall from lack of discussion. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:11, 22 July 2008 (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.