Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29 edit

Template:Slavery by location 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 speedy deleted (CSD T3) by Bogdangiusca. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slavery by location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is rendered completely superfluous by the "by country or region" section of Template:Slavery. Neelix (talk) 00:52, 30 March 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:Happy Valley edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more than a colloquial term for Pennsylvania State University and the adjacent town of State College, Pennsylvania. I've never heard it used to refer to any area beyond that, and I doubt you'd be able to find any reliable sources establishing what the term encompasses. Template does not add anything to the articles that it (was) applied to. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. A better solution might have the note "'Happy Valley', a nickname for State College, Pennsylvania and its immediate area" on the Happy Valley disambig. page link to a Happy Valley (State College, Pennsylvania) page where this information could go if deemed notable. I do think, however, that all that material could just as easily be added to the State College, Pennsylvania page and it would have the same effect without adding confusing cross links. So in short I'm saying that the material could / should be added to State College, Pennsylvania page, it seems. jheiv (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm surprised that the PSU article doesn't mention it (and I agree it's worth mentioning). I see that it is mentioned in the State College article, though it should have a third-party source to backup the assertion that it includes areas beyond State College and the campus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Locations for Titletown USA 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) 05:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locations for Titletown USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for cities featured in TitleTown USA, a 2008 segment and poll on the ESPN cable television network. This can only be trivial clutter for the cities, hardly a significant fact about them. It's currently only included on Columbus, Ohio (I assume it's been long since removed from the other cities). Postdlf (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the context of articles about cities, this information is ultimately just minor trivia. The appropriate place to include this information is in the article about the segment; since one does not exist (not notable, most likely), just delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a major enough accomplishment to justify adding a template to each city's page, especially when the competition itself doesn't have it's own page. Not notable enough in any way. --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 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:Defunct_national_football_teams edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was keep. Note: this is not an endorsement of any particular inclusion criteria or state of this template, which it appears many agree needs some work. JPG-GR (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An eclectic collection of defunct international football, teams which have changed their names, had their geographical remit altered many of which have never been recognised by a governing body either as current or defunct. The definition of defunct seems to be pure original research. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Stop trying to be a dick, You need citations for that USSR (and CIS), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Ireland have spit up and don't exist? All the teams are have a article which say they're former teams, if you think they're badly sourced there, take it to the articles talk page. chan dler · 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chandler. Most of the teams in this template have been recognised by FIFA in the past, but the teams themselves do not exist any more. Not sure about Manchuria, the Panama Canal Zone, Shanghai or Sikkim, but the CIS, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, the USSR and Yugoslavia were definitely FIFA teams. – Pee Jay 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you go to [1] and go to advanced search, and customise it is quite apparent that FIFA do not distinguish between the current russian team and the 'defunct' soviet team. I ask by what definition is defunct being used? The Irish FA could field a team called Ireland tomorrow, and be perfectly inline with FIFA rules, and why has West Germany been excluded? Yet North Vietnam has been included, it seems damn odd, and it is entirely unclear who is making up the rules for inclusion in this template Fasach Nua (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with a template for Saarland, GDR and south Vietnam where the association no longer exists, and FIFA recognise this, it is the OR that needs got rid of Fasach Nua (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Irish Freestate team not included? Yet the Ireland teams is? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is North Yemen not defunct? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA recognizes Russia (Serbia, Czech Republic) as the successors of the USSR (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia) (this is known), and in that match system they don't disambiguate the records therefore, but as you see the old names and flags are there, probably a much easier way to store data, as they consider them successors, but it's not the same team for that. But as you can see in other places "for the massive ex-Soviet confederation, who were playing their last match as a unified team.", sounds like a defunct team that split up after this game. West Germany did have a own article before, but German editors got it merged with the full German team, with arguments like that "West Germany has never existed it's always been Germany", though I personally don't really agree with it see the RfD AfD, so they would go bat-shit crazy if anyone tried to call them two separate in any form. But one thing in that is that the football association has not been changed anything, for the USSR, TCH and YUG they've all gone through some changes (like name or totally remade). When it comes to Ireland, yes that's the same FA, but there for some reason FIFA lists their first international as 1924, vs England, which we all know is wrong. And my only thought about that is ROI became a member of FIFA 1923, so is this the first game since the split was "accepted" by FIFA? But the teams have articles as former teams, that's why they're 'here'. chan dler · 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are proposing this template becomes a template for defunct teams and national associations that have undergone minor change, provided that editors from that country do not object? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 'Ha-ha'... I just showed the reason why so many don't want to accept West Germany as a former team. One of their arguments is "nothing in the FA has changed" etc. But you think it's a 'minor change' when a country goes through changes like totally transformed geographically, loses half the players they had eligible. But that again goes into that, if you say "defunct teams and national associations that have undergone minor change", that means you still don't think the USSR, YUG, TCH are still active, not defunct teams. They are widely seen as "different", while West Germany/Germany often (not always) are treated like the same, as can be seen here on rsssf [2][3] (see a small difference in treatment). chan dler · 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who do you propose is the arbitor of 'defunct', I would hate to see content fail WP:VERIFY Fasach Nua (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union, merge that into Russia? Surely no one cane verify it as a former country^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]} chan dler · 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who do you propose is the arbitor of 'defunct', I would hate to see content fail WP:VERIFY Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chandler. Uksam88 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chandler. Giant Snowman 15:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Chandler - please don't forget to remain civil! Regards, Giant Snowman 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several issues with this template, one being the there is no clear inclusion criteria. Another is the large number of international teams that no longer exist, or that play under a different name and represent a different goegraphic area to their past incarnations, that are not included on the template for whatever reason. Unless these issues are addressed I'll probably have to !vote delete. King of the North East 21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be my fault for adding some teams like Manchuria and Shanghai, which I'd be the first to admit are of debatable importance. My interpretation of the inclusion criteria was that this is a template for teams of nations that have become defunct, either as they have split up (eg Soviet Union) or because they have merged into a larger state (eg East Germany). Teams like West Germany don't belong on this template because in FIFA's eyes they still exist, their name has just changed to 'Germany'. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the difference between Russia/CIS/SU and W.Germany/Germany, as in FIFA's eyes they both still exist, their name has just changed ? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A difference is that Russia is a successor state, while Germany stayed the same, it just annexed more territory, as it did with Austria before the 1938 World Cup, a similar situation to pre Euro 92 chan dler · 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you the arbitor of 'defunct', or have you an independent external source to backup your definition? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators seriousness should really be called into question here, with revisions like [4][5] these, he's clearly just being disruptive and perhaps this needs to be taken to ANI. chan dler · 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the sole arbitor of 'defunct', or have you an independent external source to backup your definition? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how 'bout instead of trying to pick another fight by being chippy, you take it to the template discussion page and try to work something out together in a collegial manner. Now that the problem has been pointed out, working it out together might be the most productive tack. Wiggy! (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Wiggy. There may be problems with this template in its current state, but that surely doesn't mean it needs to be deleted Stu.W UK (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template may need some work, but is definitely useful. –Spudtater (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Com-list 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) 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Com-list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to be nonsense text; not used on any WP page UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unused template with no clear purpose. Perhaps it was intended to be used in a table of some sort... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. —Mythdon (talk) 00:48, 3 April 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:Vertbox 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) 05:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the template author. The template is being replaced by {{sidebar}}. SharkD (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait {{sidebar}} does not appear to take the same parameters as {{vertbox}} - what do you propose is done with the current transclusions of it? JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed all the transclusions in article and template space. The rest are in user and talk space, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Users will just have to update their sandboxes. SharkD (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Transclusions have been taken care of, delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical. Template is useful enough that it should be kept as historical. After all, I ~~use~~ used it for one of my subpages. —Mythdon (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{historical}} usually applies only to pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Since templates ultimately carry out a technical function only, deprecated or obsolete templates are generally just deleted or merged and redirected. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I feel any template that is deprecated should be kept as historical to keep page history more relevant. —Mythdon (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirecting to {{sidebar}} will cause the Talk and page histories to be retained. That said, I don't think it's a good idea. Further, the same functionality is provided by {{sidebar}}. Having two templates that basically do the same thing creates additional overhead. SharkD (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it should be kept as historical and make it say "use {{sidebar}} instead". —Mythdon (talk) 22:05, 5 April 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:Vertbox subgroup 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) 05:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vertbox subgroup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am the template author. The template is being replaced by {{sidebar}}. SharkD (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait {{sidebar}} does not appear to take the same parameters as {{vertbox subgroup}} - what do you propose is done with the current transclusions of it? JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transclusions have been taken care of, delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical. Template demonstrates such usefulness that it should it be kept as historical, and more or less, marked as deprecated. Keeping it intact would keep page history of its use relevant so deletion, redirecting or merging does not solve the problem. —Mythdon (talk) 00:46, 3 April 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.