Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 31 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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) 03:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oil on canvas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, could potentially be deleted as {{db-test}}, but the edit summary indicates that it may not be a test. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a proper template, it's boilerplate text, and just says "oil on canvas", which is shorter to type than to use the template -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to discuss these Commons-derived templates in general. I know I have been pretty inconsistent about them. The fact is, images from Commons are temporarily uploaded here when in use on the main page. This means that ugly template redlinks will show up in the file description pages when Commons templates that do not exist locally are used. The question is, do we expect the admin who uploads the image here to remove/change references to templates that we lack locally (seems unreasonable - they are overworked enough as is - and what if the template is a license tag we don't have here?), or do we maintain identical templates here with the same names as they have on Commons? — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • these uploads are usually for a short period of time. a better solution would be for the upload process to include substitution of these templates before upload, since most of them are there for inter-language support, but we only need the English version on this WP. in this particular case, seeing {{oil on canvas}} is no less informative than seeing "oil on canvas", so no information is lost by deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons has many templates that are completely useless on en.wiki, and several other templates that are incompatible with their equivalents on en.wiki, or which are completely different templates on en.wiki; any transferred images should strip their templates except for the license and info basic templates. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:20, 7 February 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.
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) 03:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Simpsons Christmas episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For the same reason it was deleted 5 years ago along with the category. Some of the episodes are only partially Christmas related such as Kill Gil, Volumes I & II, which only starts at Christmas, Skinner's Sense of Snow is on the day before Christmas break, so isn't even directly Christmas themed, and She of Little Faith is mostly about Lisa being a Buddist and only incidently has Christmas briefly in it. CTF83! 04:47, 31 January 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.
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) 04:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classical physics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete: It isn't much use as a template; it does point to physics topics where classical mechanics applies, but this should already be clear in well-written articles. It mainly links to scientists. Currently it is no longer used (in mainspace) [1] - hence redundant. There are template:classical mechanics, template:continuum mechanics, template:statistical mechanics, template:thermodynamics, and template:electromagnetism, which are more focussed and better suited to point to the main areas of classical physics, within an article. Please see a recent discussion here. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what categories are better for, there isn't one for Category:Classical physics. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are few, if any, candidates for transcluding this. If we need a navbox for those, I would suggest to make one with a broader scope, covering all of physics. — HHHIPPO 17:14, 3 February 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.