Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13 edit

Template:Characters of s-CRY-ed 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) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Characters of s-CRY-ed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After bypassing both redirects, template links to exactly two articles (the main article and the character list). Even if the episode list eventually gets spun out into its own article, there won't be enough articles to justify using a navbox to link between them. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Standard inwiki will do between the future 3 articles. --KrebMarkt 20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Three articles is not confusing enough to need a map, let alone two. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:49, 17 February 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 LPGA Tournament 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) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LPGA Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused. Any extra fields (if ever required) should be added to Template:Infobox Golf Tournament. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone wants to use it (which seems unlikely). Robofish (talk) 22:15, 17 February 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.

2008 US Open templates 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) 03:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008USOpenGolfPlayoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008USOpenCourseLayout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates were created to be used solely in a single article. The information has since been added directly, and the templates are now unused. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 17 February 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:Expand Polish 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) 03:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand Polish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too large and obtrusive for article page — needs to be reduced in size or go on the talk pages. This template was created in December and so far has no documentation. Klein zach 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep does not appear "too large" compared with precisely similar templates. It is, in fact, succinct. Collect (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict to talk pages only. PC78 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm I'm not sure PC. The idea of the templates was that they emulate the normal "Expand section" tag you see in articles not in the talk page to let editors know reading the article that vital information is missing which has a fuller articles in another language. In the same way that a neutrality or cleanup tag would be added the idea is that they are placed in the article or section which needs transwikiying. A lot of editors don't check the talk page. I don't think the template is too bloated. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really emulate {{expand}} though. This template isn't highlighting a specific concern with the article, it's an appeal for help in a "coordinated drive" and as such it belongs on the talk page. I see that there is a whole category full of these things, and my concern extends to all of them. As an aside, the white of the flag is lost on the background; it just looks like a red bar, not the Polish flag. PC78 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the template should be rephrased, not deleted. I see it along the lines of {{expand section}}, which provides parameters so you can specify where to get information to expand from. (Strangely {{expand}} does not include this. In any event I don't think this template should be compared to {{expand}}, which must be the worst cleanup banner in all of wikipedia.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thats what I meant Jen. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that the template should be deleted. A rewording would certainly make this acceptable for use in an article. PC78 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -the template are greatly needed to help coordinate the transwiki process on wikipedia. They are to be applied to articles which we believe are completely lacking in comparison to the Polish version and to raise awareness of them in the mainspace. When a user accesses the article they become not only aware of this, but in my experience has encouraged users who speak the language to translate a few of them from the other wikipedia and then remove the tag in doing so so in the long run wikipedia develops considerably. Aside from this I have a huge log of articles to be transwikied and this template lets users know that the article is being transwikied. It is all part of a major effort to get good or informative articles (referenced if possible) onto English wikipedia at the same standard of detail and quality as the other language equivalent. nothing wrong with that, most people are aware that a key part of wikipedia is building the damn thing!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and do not restrict to talk page. This template is useful to both editors and readers. For editors, especially potential editors, it is useful to have it in mainspace. It attracts attention to work that needs to be done, in a manner similar to other templates. See the perennial proposals page (I think) for info about why cleanup templates have been keep in mainspace after numerous debates. It is also very helpful for readers. If someone is looking for an article on an obscure Polish painter with an undeveloped English-language article, the chances aren't too bad that that reader has some understanding of Polish. In this respect, it serves as a helpful pointer to a Wikipedia article that may be more useful. And even if the reader doesn't understand Polish, they can still go to google translate and get a decent machine translation of the wiki article - which also allows them to make the most of existing wikipedia resources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, even google translation can do a significant job with improving and expanding the article and can be done within minutes, a positive surplus in the end, especially if the information is referenced on the corresponding wikipedia. In reality more of us should be doing something about speeding up the transwiki process, it will lead to a better encyclopedia for everybody overall in whatever language. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calliopejen1. Just having an interwiki link isn't always enough to indicate that there's potentially translateable material located in another location; this does a wonderful job, in my opinion, of catching the eye and getting somebody to consider what's out there to be worked on. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems pertfectly valid and useful to me. Nominator gives no reason why it is even listed for deletion. Discussion about size, usage and documentation should be kept to the talk page of the template in question. _wjemather ^bigissue 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a redesign of the template that hopefully will satisfy some concerns. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Substantially similar to the other templates (perhaps due to the redesign). Based on your complaint, either nom all or none. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:37, 18 February 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:Campaignbox Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II 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 action at this time - nomination rationale is incomplete. No prejudice toward any future nomination. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to a better designed template.McMuff (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment which is? Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as below. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 17 February 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:Campaignbox Blockade of the Potomac River 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 action at this time - nomination rationale is incomplete. No prejudice toward any future nomination. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Blockade of the Potomac River (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to a better designed template.McMuff (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment which is? Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a template which only contains one link. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 17 February 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:British Isles (terminology) 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) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles (terminology) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used only in two talk page archives, and I can't think of why it is necessary to have a template specific to this one topic. The user who created it was indefinitely blocked (see User talk:Robdurbar). If any of you can think of a good reason to keep it, now is the time to say so. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 02:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and subst on the talk pages, I suppose) - old and no longer used. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 17 February 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:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks 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. JPG-GR (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template is not a good format for listing al-Qaeda attacks, since the extent of al-Qaeda's involvement is often much more nuanced. Templates do not capture nuance very well. Al-Qaeda's involvement may have been financing, training, direct coordination, and/or influence. Their involvement in an attack may have been all of those things, or perhaps just influence (in which case, the incident probably shouldn't be listed in a template). The involvement may have been very extensive or minimal. Explaining the extent of their involvement for various attacks is best left to article text (e.g. Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks) where nuances can be explained and be accompanied by citations. --Aude (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not appear to be an attempt to list every attack, but does list ones which are generally accepted as being connected with aQ. WP is not a good place for cavils on generally accepted facts. Collect (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there policies governing templates available? I think a list of acknowledged al Qaeda attacks is useful but I wonder about the duplication with the timeline linked above. Such a list is useful but why as a template? I'm not sure. csloat (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would there be a replacement template? Could the template be split into sub-templates? --Tarage (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the {{War on Terrorism}} template, which lists incidents and other things from 2001 to present, along with the {{Islamism}} template. Maybe something more general, like the WOT template, that covers Islamist attacks (including al-Qaeda and other groups) would work better. Then, it could include attacks where the perpetrators were inspired by Bin Laden, but acted on their own, or those by affiliated groups. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The power of the wikipedia lies not in the raw information we offer, but in how it is organized. Our information is useless, if it can't be found. Categories and templates can be good tools for organizing information. Or they can be superfluous or trivial. Our nominator has not yet convinced me that this particular template doesn't help organize the information we offer. Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the burden of proof would be the other way; has anyone shown why this template is useful here? I'm not sure. My vote is delete unless someone presents an argument for keeping. csloat (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 01:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - inclusion of specific incidents on this template is a matter for debate, but I don't find the template itself problematic - there have been several terrorist attacks that were uncontroversially the responsibility of Al-Qaeda. As long as this template is watched to stop those with trivial AQ involvement being added, it seems acceptable. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Woefully incomplete, too. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:45, 17 February 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.