Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22 edit

Template:Washington highways 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. WOSlinker (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded and now unused template that is obsoleted by the "links" section of {{Infobox road}} and {{Infobox state highway system}}. Admrboltz (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I fully endorse the nominator's rationale (a.k.a. "per nom") Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As unused and per nom. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:59, 28 January 2011 (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:Elke Sommer films 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. WOSlinker (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elke Sommer films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Multiple previous consensus shows that actors & actresses should not have navigation templates for their filmography. Lugnuts (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per now, consensus. Also, the template isn't used.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (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:VPCQuickLinks 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. WP:VPC is gone. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2011 (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:VIPtemplate 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. (Note: protected with no items in protection log, which is very, very strange.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2011 (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:VISC-add-nomination 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VISC-add-nomination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wrong wiki (belongs on Commons). And besides, commons:Commons:Valued_images_candidates/candidate_list was deleted at Commons. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2011 (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:Vaasan rata 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vaasan rata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unused sea of redlinks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2011 (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:VGnavbox-bloated 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VGnavbox-bloated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Amboxes on template pages, eh? Practically no-one will ever see them. Unused. Also delete redirect {{CVGnavbox-bloated}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (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:Juice Plus ingredients 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Juice Plus ingredients (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I don't think this is really encyclopedic information. However, it is in the article Juice Plus, so I suppose that isn't much of a reason. The main reason for deletion is that the actual code is in the article, and this template is not actually transcluded. So delete it to avoid duplication of information. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2011 (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:Järvamaa-cat 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Järvamaa-cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Since the municipalities in question don't seem to have articles, I don't know where this navbox is meant to be placed. Links to categories from navboxes are a bit iffy too. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Those templates were meant for a smoother navigation between the categories of different municipalities. Now they're all used as you can see here. And by the way all the municipalities in question have their own arcticles. Flying Saucer (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2011 (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:First Great Western stations 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First Great Western stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I really do get tired of saying formal-sounding things like "no scope for use" in cases like this. No documentation, no useful edit summaries, no transclusions, no incoming links... no applicable CSD!... Just delete the thing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (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:VAX1 gene... 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 Deleted. Rehman 13:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VAX1 gene is a homeodomain transcription factor that has a homeodomain located in the 100-159 amino acid position and an Ala–rich region located in 216-253 amino acid position of the gene(Uniprot Q5SQQ9) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Easier just to type it in than use this template. WOSlinker (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2011 (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:PakistanPop 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PakistanPop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PakistanPopCommas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (effectively). Provides an estimate of Pakistan's current population based on... what? No source info provided. Pretty useless anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (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:Ivy League business schools 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ivy League business schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools. Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. Jadunne (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are very poor nominations that don't have any basis in higher education organization and administration. Institutions in sports conferences typically share many traits (which is why they're in the same conference in the first place) so it's natural that they cooperate with one another in many ways and on many different levels. ElKevbo (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fine rationale if these schools did in fact collaborate by virtue of being in the Ivy League, but I don't think they do. It seems like just an arbitrary grouping, whose logic could be used to create dozens of similarly arbitrary templates. Jadunne (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By my count, this editor has now nominated six separate pages for deletion for the same basic reason—one which I find unconvincing. Grouping schools by academic conference affiliation is a geographic classification, just like grouping schools by US Census Bureau-defined region of the United States. I have been trying to establish a dialogue with the editor, but he or she has evidently been more intent on nominating pages for deletion than having a discussion. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on your talk page right after receiving your message. As I said, I thought I was supposed to nominate these together since it was for the same reason, to be fair to each of the pages. Sorry about that. I am happy to let the discussion get settled before nominating others. Jadunne (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2011 (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:Big Ten business schools 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Ten business schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools. Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. Jadunne (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are very poor nominations that don't have any basis in higher education organization and administration. Institutions in sports conferences typically share many traits (which is why they're in the same conference in the first place) so it's natural that they cooperate with one another in many ways and on many different levels. ElKevbo (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fine rationale if these schools did in fact collaborate by virtue of being in the Big Ten, but I don't think they do. It seems like just an arbitrary grouping, whose logic could be used to create dozens of similarly arbitrary templates. Jadunne (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By my count, this editor has now nominated six separate pages for deletion for the same basic reason—one which I find unconvincing. Grouping schools by academic conference affiliation is a geographic classification, just like grouping schools by US Census Bureau-defined region of the United States. I have been trying to establish a dialogue with the editor, but he or she has evidently been more intent on nominating pages for deletion than having a discussion. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on your talk page right after receiving your message. As I said, I thought I was supposed to nominate these together since it was for the same reason, to be fair to each of the pages. Sorry about that. I am happy to let the discussion get settled before nominating others. Jadunne (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sports programs already are given too much clout as it is, and to say that they have any effect at all on the postgraduate academic programs of specific schools degrades those programs and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Now for the argument that actually has clout: This is not a useful measure of association, and is essentially as worthless as a category for graduate schools whose' parent institutions have certain school colors. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the athletics departments has no bearing on classification of the individual programs in the academic realm. Imzadi 1979 → 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as the discussion immediately below this, regarding the Big Ten Law Schools template. For people who don't know any better, who are coming to the encylopedia Wikipedia, the template appears to saying that these schools somehow share something, that they share a background or common goal or method of instruction or something, that there is some sort of tie between the business schools, and there isn't. There is an academic council which appears to basically be a method of jointly advertising the schools -- it doesn't rate teachers or compare them across schools, courses are designed with different methods of teaching and basic ideologies, I just don't see anything that ties these business schools together (or the law schools, which is the following discussion) except a shared sports history. The template is misleading -- we shouldn't attempt to get technical with the terms "big ten" or "top ten" or whatever you want to call the #1 through #10 best "schools" in a given field while implying with our technical distinction that schools (which aren't even close to being in the "top ten") are in the "something" ten. The "Big Ten" is a sports term and should remain a sports term.Banaticus (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus is deletion. 3 keeps, 3 deletes, and 2 of the keeps are merely procedural disagreements which were dealt with when Jadunne corrected the Template for Deletion postings. Banaticus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get the same numbers you get and I don't see how 2 of the keeps are "merely procedural" as they seem substantive beyond objecting to the manner in which this was initially done. This looks like "no consensus" to me but I think we should let the closer decide for him or herself instead of trying to sway him or her by declaring consensus to be in your favor. ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at the original templates and see how the deletion templates linking here have changed -- you'll see what I meant about procedural issues. ;) Also, you haven't responded to my concerns yet. You stated that these schools compete on a number of levels. I basically said that these schools compete not just with each other but with the rest of the nation and unlike sports conferences there are no business or law subdivisions in the "competition" with every other business or law school. Further, the name of the template is misleading as the term "Big Ten" don't really cooperate other than in marketing. Sure, they say they do, but it's standard Wikipedia practice to ignore what people say about themselves on their own websites as people can say anything. There are no second hand sources that reflect how these business or law schools cooperate and not even the own schools websites or third-party "Big Ten" websites state how the schools cooperate. I've said that the courses have different methods of teaching and basic ideologies, that they don't rate teachers across universities or compare them across schools or really have anything else tying them together other than a shared sports history, which should have no relation to business or law schools. Banaticus (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Big Ten Conference is an athletic, not academic, organization. Moreover, while each of the Big Ten member schools' athletic programs are generally on par with each other, their business schools vary significantly in selectivity, rank and rigor. Ross (Michigan) and Kellogg (Northwestern) have more in common with Wharton (Penn), Harvard and Duke (Fuqua) than Iowa, Michigan State and Penn State. Levdr1 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2011 (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:Big Ten Law Schools 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Ten Law Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools. Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. Jadunne (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are very poor nominations that don't have any basis in higher education organization and administration. Institutions in sports conferences typically share many traits (which is why they're in the same conference in the first place) so it's natural that they cooperate with one another in many ways and on many different levels. ElKevbo (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fine rationale if these law schools did in fact collaborate by virtue of being in the Big Ten, but I don't think they do. It seems like just an arbitrary grouping, whose logic could be used to create dozens of similarly arbitrary templates. Jadunne (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By my count, this editor has now nominated six separate pages for deletion for the same basic reason—one which I find unconvincing. Grouping schools by academic conference affiliation is a geographic classification, just like grouping schools by US Census Bureau-defined region of the United States. I have been trying to establish a dialogue with the editor, but he or she has evidently been more intent on nominating pages for deletion than having a discussion. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on your talk page right after receiving your message. As I said, I thought I was supposed to nominate these together since it was for the same reason, to be fair to each of the pages. Sorry about that. I am happy to let the discussion get settled before nominating others. Jadunne (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The schools listed range (as far as law schools go) from #9 in the nation to not even appearing in the top 100 list. The schools have nothing in common other than being affiliated with a particular sports program. They do not "cooperate in many ways and on many levels". If a person were to transfer from one of the listed schools to another listed school, no additional weight would be given to the decision regarding whether or not a given class was accepted for credit (since sports programs do not matter in that context to these schools). The template is misleading in that it conflates (appears to make equal) particular subsets of given schools where those subsets are of varying calibers. Banaticus (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the name may primarily be for the athletic conference, but it is also a widely used categorization of this group of schools in general. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Associating the law schools with the sports programs is something I actually find disgusting on a personal level. Sports programs already are given too much clout as it is, and to say that they have any effect at all on the law programs of specific schools degrades the law programs and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Now for the argument that actually has clout: This is not a useful measure of association, and is essentially as worthless as a category for law schools whose' parent institution have certain school colors. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the athletics departments has no bearing on classification of the individual programs in the academic realm. Imzadi 1979 → 09:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus is deletion. 3 keeps, 3 deletes, and 2 of the keeps are merely procedural disagreements which were dealt with when Jadunne corrected the Template for Deletion postings. Banaticus (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how 2 of the keeps are "merely procedural" as they seem substantive beyond objecting to the manner in which this was initially done. This looks like "no consensus" to me but I think we should let the closer decide for him or herself instead of trying to sway him or her by declaring consensus to be in your favor. ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at the original templates and see how the deletion templates linking here have changed -- you'll see what I meant about procedural issues. ;) Also, you haven't responded to my concerns yet. You stated that these schools compete on a number of levels. I basically said that these schools compete not just with each other but with the rest of the nation and unlike sports conferences there are no business or law subdivisions in the "competition" with every other business or law school. Further, the name of the template is misleading as the term "Big Ten" don't really cooperate other than in marketing. Sure, they say they do, but it's standard Wikipedia practice to ignore what people say about themselves on their own websites as people can say anything. There are no second hand sources that reflect how these business or law schools cooperate and not even the own schools websites or third-party "Big Ten" websites state how the schools cooperate. I've said that the courses have different methods of teaching and basic ideologies, that they don't rate teachers across universities or compare them across schools or really have anything else tying them together other than a shared sports history, which should have no relation to business or law schools. Banaticus (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Big Ten Conference is an athletic, not academic, organization. Moreover, while each of the Big Ten member schools' athletic programs are generally on par with each other, their law schools vary significantly in selectivity, rigor and rank. Frankly, law schools like Michigan and Northwestern have more in common with Harvard, Chicago and Stanford than Iowa, Michigan State and Penn State. Levdr1 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2011 (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:Sri Lanka abbr 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sri Lanka abbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pakistan abbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ireland abbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Declined speedy. The rest of these country "abbr" templates were deleted years ago. There are these three two left. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2011 (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:Pages- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pages- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I really don't know what this is for. Also delete redirect {{pages-page}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2011 (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:Islandcopy 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A specific case of {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2011 (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:Iranianrap 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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. I don't know what this is supposed to be. A navbar? An attempt at an infobox? Goodness knows. When you consider its use of external links, its hodge-podge layout, random information ("Language"), red links at bottom, and most of all its probable non-notability, I think this is worth deleting. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2011 (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:Iranian-shah 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iranian-shah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Old. No scope for use - pretending to be a hatnote, but isn't. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (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.

Weatherbox 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 keep most, but delete the orphaned ones, and no prejudice against renomination of a smaller, more targeted group. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All templates in Category:Weatherbox templates and its subcategories
Template:Gibraltar climate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Grand Turk Climate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
(Note: due to the nature of this mass nomination, TfD tags have not been placed on the templates, and the multitude of creators have, unfortunately, not been notified.)

These are "single-use templates" - they contain information (climate data tables) that should only appear in one article.

  • Many have no transclusions, having already been subst'ed into an article, or having been superseded by an updated climate table in an article. Each of these can be deleted, but only after checking that the information in the template already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. (If it doesn't, a subst and delete should occur.)
  • Some are transcluded in one article only. These should be subst'ed and then deleted - there is no benefit to keeping the climate data separate from the article; in most cases it makes editing the article in question more difficult.
  • Some are transcluded in two or more articles. In these cases, the most appropriate article for the information should be chosen. The climate table should be subst'ed into that article, removed from the other article(s) in which it appears, and then deleted. Climate data tables are big, and do not need to appear in (for example) Hong Kong and Climate of Hong Kong.
  • If all the templates in the category are deleted, the category should go too.

I hope that all makes sense. These templates are just going to cause headaches for editors if they stay around.

Also, feel free to add other weatherbox templates to the nomination if you find them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have tagged all 118 or so the templates in the nomination with the {{tfd}} tag (sigh!). — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion of transcluded templates, due to several reasons. Firstly, mass deletion would cause massive disruption at all of the city articles; I either have to retype all of the data, or in my case, go to Chinese Wikipedia to find the data and copy it to English Wikipedia. Secondly, regarding "easier" to edit...For single transclusion templates, a strong benefit would be to make vandalism harder — too often have I seen vandals fabricate data on city main articles, and I can safely say that vandalism has been far less common, in many cases non-existent, on these templates. Another issue is that transclusion of these templates save space in large articles and makes code easier to read and scroll through. Lastly, why should these tables only appear in one article, huh? I see no harm in including them on the main articles of cities, and moreover this is often useful information to the reader. In particular, pages such as Climate of _ and those Geography of _ sub-articles with a climate section almost 'mandate' inclusion of such information.
    • A couple of things: I am by no means suggesting the data be removed by "mass deletion". It can be substituted into the page, effectively copying the template code into the page while removing the attachment from the template. So that is no concern. Additionally, one of the principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Having this data separate means that only those who understand templates are able to edit it. Wikipedia manages to deal with vandalism well on the whole, so weatherbox templates ought to be no different. (I understand that subtle vandalistic tweaking of one climate value here and there may be an issue, but only a slight one.) Thirdly, you ask why climate data should not be in more than one place. The reason "Climate of ..." and "Geog of ..." sub-articles are created is to contain the detailed climate info, while the main article simply contains a general summary and a link to the sub-article. It is not necessary to have weather boxes in the main article when sub-articles exist - the data they contain hardly makes up a "general summary" of climate. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, no. I was not at all trying to suggest that the data will be removed. I was attempting to express the fear that either way, if mass copying of this data occurs beforehand, or if the templates are deleted before the data is substituted from them, then there is a hassle. And regarding the one place versus detail argument, of course this is a matter of personal views. I hold that the visual nature of these tables is helpful in of itself. For many, colours are much better than a mere mention of:
  1. statistics, i.e. Washington, DC averages 79.2 °F (26.2 °C) in July. Well if only the daily average is mentioned, as is often the case, what are highs and lows like? These tables provide the answer
  2. an excessively detailed (to some) Köppen climate classification
  3. vague adjectives (i.e. cool, chilly, mild, etc.) that rely on global standards that are both not defined and widely varying perceptions of cold and heat
      • Lastly, it can be reasoned that those with enough knowledge of these templates will be better able to detect slight vandalistic tweaking of data once they see it. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - what the nominator has failed to realise is that they are not singularly used for cities, but act as area templates as well. For example, the MET Office in the UK do not provide statistics for all areas, just for cities. I made the Cambridge weatherbox because it was the nearest city with climate data to a small town I was writing a GA article about, and is thus used for both Cambridge, but also several towns nearby. Another reason to oppose is that if the template style is removed or discouraged, we could end up with all sorts of weird and wonderful self-made designs. As well, if the data is updated for a place, it is updated on all of the relevant templates. If they're subst'd, connected articles will not be likewise updated. Rob (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to seem too argumentative here, but I still maintain that weatherboxes should only appear on one article. Did the small towns around Cambridge really need the climate data? I don't think sprinkling the same weatherbox on the article of every town within n miles of a westher station is really helpful to readers. Perhaps the article could reference the article of the area of larger city which has the climate data, I don't know. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asked to add the weatherbox as part of a successful GA nomination, so yes it did need a weatherbox. Cambridge was the nearest MET Office data available. Rob (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Template:Yeovilton weatherbox is used in several articles. It is the only official weather station in the county of Somerset and therefore relevant to local town & village articles as well as being used in the county article - where it was discussed at FAC. (I also found this discussion difficult to find as the tfd template added to that article did not take me specifically here).— Rod talk 08:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and do the nomination properly. There are a multitude of circumstances affecting different templates that should be taken into account. Fine, if there are templates used in no articles wrap them up in a batch and nominate them.
The others need to be considered individually as the most appropriate location for the data isn't always obvious. UK official (Met Office) weather data is often only available from a relative handful of stations. These locations aren't always where you would expect and this may result in some large cities being stripped of a climate section as there is "no weather station" in that city, whilst some hill in the middle of nowhere occupied by a flock of sheep gets a climate graph.
For example, taking Template:Manchester weatherbox, the Weather station in question is actually at Manchester Airport some 9 miles from Manchester. Is the most appropriate article Manchester Airport, the city of Manchester, the County of Greater Manchester, or Geography of Greater Manchester? Are you suggesting that what some/many people regard as the 2nd/3rd city of the UK (a city whose reputation is no less largely described by its wet climate) should have no climate data? Or do we remove the data from the dedicated Geography of Greater Manchester and/or Greater Manchester articles - in which case - where do I go if I want to know the climate of the city of Salford? This example, happens to be one of a number with the potential to be particularly poisonous because an ongoing debate about whether Wikipedia should recognise the post 1974 county boundaries or the traditional ones (Manchester was in Lancashire until 1974). Equally, in the case of the Manchester box, there are a number of substantial settlements that are closer to Manchester Airport than Manchester but happen to be in Cheshire (e.g. Wilmslow) or technically outside what is considered the "City of Manchester" in governance terms (e.g. Altrincham and Stockport) - as far as I am aware weather does not yet obey municipal boundaries. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on point of procedure; honestly, my impulse would be to support deletion of some templates, while recommending Keep on the others. As noted above, there are enough varying circumstances here that discussion of the group of templates as a single group is well nigh impossible. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:18, 26 January 2011 (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:Considering-l 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. WOSlinker (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Considering-l (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. 5 years old. Media should not be uploaded without a valid license; such consideration should occur before uploading. Creator blocked. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2011 (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:Contradictionwhy 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. WOSlinker (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. AFAICS, no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Maybe have been meant to be some sort of a clean-up tag. Unneeded.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably meant to be used in tandem with {{Contradict}}. Not really needed. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 03:19, 27 January 2011 (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:Eton College societies 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. WOSlinker (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eton College societies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Plainly useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I un-closed this discussion, as the template has not in fact been deleted yet. But it obviously should be. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2011 (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.

All templates in Category:FIFA World Cup Country record 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 after merging with articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All templates in Category:FIFA World Cup Country record templates except the user subpages and the master template {{FIFA World Cup Country record}}

These templates are "single-use templates" - the information they contain is only used in one article. For example, the information in {{England FIFA World Cup record}} exists (in better condition) at England national football team#FIFA World Cup. Most of the templates have no transclusions. Those that do have a single transclusion in the team articles should be subst'ed and deleted. See earlier nomination of a single one of these templates, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 17#Template:Denmark FIFA World Cup record. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_22&oldid=1141876333"