Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

April 19 edit

Template:NorridgeMayors 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 debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only red links. Current Mayor, Earl J. Field deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl J. Field. Not used in any article, not likely to be used in future. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now since there are no articles that uses it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no articles use it and it could easily be re-created if the need arose. --CapitalR (talk) 17:46, 21 April 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.

Template:Images needed 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 debate was no consensus. The debate about whether such templates should be article-space or talk-space (and thus whether this template is useful) seems unlikely to be resolved here at TfD; wider discussion about this in general terms (maybe on a Wikipedia-space talkpage) may be a better way of coming to a result. --ais523 08:57, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Requests for article space images, infoboxes, etc. traditionally are made on the article talk page. See Category:Image request templates, for example. This template is used on the article page. If that is an acceptable expanse in the use of article space templates,^{*(see my comment below GregManninLB (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC))} then keep. Otherwise, delete/redirect. — GregManninLB (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This template was created specifically to provide a way to call for images on articles to which valid contributions are made by editors who generally don't or won't look at the article's talk page. This kind of editor is found in significant number in the automotive articles, for example. It's unfortunate that such editors cannot be made instantly to understand the utility and purpose of the talk page, but it'd be even more unfortunate to forego their valuable contributions. Stamping our feet and insisting that editors pay attention to what they consider boring minutiæ of the workings of Wikipedia was not working, and was proving counterproductive. On the other hand, of course we must be mindful that too many templates in article space will create undue clutter. A compromise had to be struck so as to be suitably inclusive of as many editors as practicable without spoiling the article space, and this template is a part of that compromise. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between Category:Pages needing images newly created for Template:Images needed and Category:Articles needing images created in October 2007? GregManninLB (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Answer is "none"; the creation of a new category was improper. Thanks for the heads-up; I've edited the template to interface with Category:Articles needing images. I still think the template is useful and stand by my "keep" vote, however. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We really do not need yet another template for requesting images. This template does not add the request to any request for photograph/image category so will not come to the attention of other unless this article is specifically read. Also it really gives the impression of a work in progress article,even if the text content is good. Suggest in such cases adding the infobox that matches the subject with a blank image space or add a small placeholder image to the page. Traveler100 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Actually, this template does add the request to Category:Pages needing images, and if a more suitable category would be preferable, it's not difficult to edit the template to put things there instead, so I'm not sure that's a valid reason to delete this template. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. Was not clear from the template text.Traveler100 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure on this one. Normally on-article cleanup templates are for things that should definitely be one way or another, for a lack of better words. If this is how it's being used then I don't really have a problem with it. It's hard to say where we should draw the line for cleanup tags. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This kind of article messsage box can sit forever on some articles. It is not always so easy to get pictures of things. Scheinwerfermann: If you have problems with editors that don't look at the talkpage then you should tell them so on their user talkpage since that will give them a orange "you have new messages" bar. Of course IP users are more problematic since they don't get such a message bar. (At least I think they don't get the bar, I have to check that.) Or they don't come back with the same IP next time anyway. Perhaps a very different template is needed instead: A smaller less intrusive more generic template that we can put at the article top or section top telling the editors to take a look at the article's talk page. Something like: "This article is currently being discussed at its talkpage." Then we can have longer explanations on the talk page. That might even draw in non-editing readers to the talkpage who then might get interested in how it works and start editing! --David Göthberg (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— Sorry, perhaps I didn't clearly explain the recurrent situation that led to the creation of this template. It differs from what you seem to have in mind, in that it's not that editors weren't aware of the article's talk page or didn't know there was anything to look at on their own talk page. It's that editors were positively refusing to look at talk pages, let alone engage in dialogue thereon. I like your idea for a smaller template pointing explicitly at the talk page, though it would likely not help direct users to particular topics in the case of articles with very long talk pages, and it likely would not help with the aforementioned talk page-averse editors. Perhaps a compromise would be to figure out how to put together a smaller, less obtrusive article space template suggesting more/better images would be a good addition to the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see having a subtle note on the article page referencing a request on the talk page a useful way of encouraging readers to contribute. Would it be technically possible to have a template on the talk page, for example reqphoto or project templates with needimage=yes, to place automatically a small note on the corresponding article page? This way you can bring the request to the attention of people monitoring the subject categories as well as someone reading the page. Traveler100 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this suggestion a lot. This would be an elegant solution if it's technically feasible. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - Requesting images on article space is not without precedent (I just put two and two together). Wikipedia image placeholders may be used for that very purpose by adding a placeholder image on the article page (usually in the info box). There was a discussion on it here. There now is a discussion about them at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Since we already do request images on the article space, perhaps it is not such a bad thing to use a well formed template to make such a request as an alternative to the numerous photos at Wikipedia image placeholders. GregManninLB (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Interesting idea. Has appeal. I suspect it's technically difficult, though. The talk pages are basically separate entities from their corresponding non-talk-pages. They get rendered and cached separately. One might be able to kludge together something with a specific subpage name in the talk namespace that gets looked for by the wiki-markup that's used to frame every page, but that would effectively add a transclusion to every single page, and I suspect the server admins would frown upon that for performance reasons. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the template. It appears to serve a useful purpose, by identifing articles which would significantly benefit from having images added. Maybe someone familiar with an appropriate photo from Commons will see the box and go and find it. Maybe its presence will inspire a reader to go out and take a photo. Maybe shutter-bugs will go looking for the corresponding category. • Background commentary: There is long-standing debate within the Wikipedia community over the use of article message boxes. Some want them in articles, some want them on talk pages. I really don't think we need to rehash that arguments here. Present consensus appears to be that they go in articles. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was created as a replacement for the unpopular image placeholder templates, over which it has several advantages (it's less obtrusive and doesn't speak directly to the reader). It wouldn't be appropriate to place this on every article lacking an image, but it would be useful on those where the addition of an image would add significant encyclopaedic value. Terraxos (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that requests for pictures, etc. should be kept to talk pages. They are not disruptive to Wikipedia there, and if anyone is sufficiently interested in adding pictures, photos, etc, they will be reading the talk pages. —Scouter Sig 14:34, 24 April 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.

Template:New Testament people collapsed 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 debate was redirect now that the two templates have been changed to be exact duplicates. (I see that this has already been implemented.) --ais523 13:37, 4 May 2008 (U T C)

This is made redundant by Template:New Testament people and since it contradicts the categorisation found there, we cannot have both. — StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most New Testament people have a big "Saint" box with a photo in the upper right and fairly short article. Putting a pre-collapsed New Testament people template just under the Saint box is the best way to use the space along the crowded right-hand edge.--Carlaude (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But what about the problem about having two conflicting templates? Can't we put a collapsing option in Template:New Testament people? StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments need to be sharpened for those of us who are not "insiders" to this dispute. I don't care for the term "pilars" whatever the heck that means, in this template recommended for deletion. But that doesn't seem reason enough. Quantities in the boxes seem too long for us outsiders to inventory. Both look good otherwise. Student7 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Pillars" referred to the deleted article Pillars of the church. The word appears in the New Testament, but it doesn't refer to any particular group of people. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Templates can be set to auto-collapse when there are two or more templates in an article—so this is redundant. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't a navbox, as I thought it was. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they are essentially the same thing--all of their content certainly is. Replace with Template:New Testament people in any place it is used. —Scouter Sig 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that there is a collapse option on the other template, the "collapsed" template is useless. No need for two of the exact same thing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that collapse option on the other template did not work, as it was an info box. I have totally remade Template:New Testament people as a Nav box with autocollapse (that should be good enough) and made Template:New Testament people collapsed a redirect.--Carlaude (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for duplicates. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:00, 4 May 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.

Template:Russell Brand 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 debate was no consensus (kept by default) - Nabla (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list of the persons works. Bencey (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not used in any of the articles it mentions. Atyndall93 | talk 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was used in the articles it mentions, would you say "keep"? DH85868993 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template has now been added into all the linked articles. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does being "just a list of the person's works" mean it should be deleted? Should {{John Frankenheimer Films}} also be deleted? DH85868993 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are scores of templates listing a person's works (especially authors + directors). This seems fine as well. Gracenotes^T § 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with 'Gracenotes'. There are loads of templates like this out there. The template is now on all the articles the template links to. If no one else has any objections then it should stay. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The difference between this and, say, {{John Frankenheimer Films}} is that John Frankenheimer is a director: he had a significant role in all the films included in that template. Russell Brand, on the other hand, is an actor and TV personality, and had little or no role in the production of many of the things listed in this template; in some, his appearance is no more than a cameo. (For example, Cruise of the Gods, or The Bill, where he starred in one episode.) This is basically no more than an IMDB page of his various appearances, and as such serves no useful purpose as a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with 'Gracenotes'. --Mwongozi (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with 'Terraxos'. Bencey (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gracenotes, seems fine to me. DWaterson (talk) 13:38, 26 April 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.

Template:MH airport SE Asia 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 debate was delete. --ais523 09:00, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Airport articles already have a list of airlines and destinations, and Malaysia Airlines destinations already exists, there is no possible need for this template.. Россавиа ^Диалог 06:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support. If one airport has 80 airlines flying there, that means, the article may have 80 navbox like this. Ridiculous! --Zack2007 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 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.

Template:Reqcover 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used, in interest of removing overlapping templates propose use of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums — Traveler100 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Adding the template {{reqphoto|albums}} in the talk page of the article already categorizes the article in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums. Since reqcover is not being use and it duplicates {{reqphoto|albums}}, delete. GregManninLB (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Greg. —Scouter Sig 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 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.