Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 March 17)
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17, 2006 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep all Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corporate navigational templates edit

Navigational templates are Article series boxes. The following corporate navigational templates, generallly modelled on Template:Navbox Company, all violate a guideline made at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes. This guideline states that if the following question is answered no: "Is a given article in the series likely to mention the article before or after it in the series outside of the box?", then "a category or list is probably more appropriate". When this question is answered in regard to each of the following templates, the answer is always no. All of the inter-Wikipedia links of these corporate templates are exclusively to products, assets, or employees of the company in question, and therefore simple categorization is the only needed way of grouping this related data.

Additionally, several of these navigational templates contain space for members of a company's board of directors. However, several individuals sit on the boards of multiple companies. Therefore, Wikipedia articles about these individuals themselves could become quite crowded with all the navigational templates of companies that the individual is a director of. For example, Peter Godsoe is on the board of 5 prominent Canadian corporations, and if corporate navigational templates like the following continue to be created, he would have 5 navigational templates on his Wikipedia article. There are also issues of redundancy with Template:Infobox Company. Please also see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Microsoft for discussion regarding a corporate navigational template like those below, which was deleted.

The following corporate navigational templates are proposed for deletion, and are proposed to have the articles they link to categorized by their respective company, if they are not already:

--Kurieeto 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, as outcome based on comments and precedent leads to either no changes or to revisions - But not deletion. Kurieeto 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Useful. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While they are against WP policy, they are quite useful, per CFIF, and it'd be a shame to lose all of that work, not to mention that its great for navigation. --J@red [T]/[+] 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThey are useful for navigation (Hypernick1980 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong KeepThey are helpful for nagivation and assist in research for a company that has a lot of subsidaries. LordBleen 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very informitive and useful templates Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful to keep track of those multiple directorships and other information as we develop the templates. Chadlupkes 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Extremely useful, especially considering companies like GE & the Bells. Instead of having to search again for another asset, you can simply click on it in the template. KansasCity 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – (empoor) 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - very useful for finding related activities which would otherwise not be included, keeps links in context in a way which a category cannot. Ian3055 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for multinationals and huge conglomerates with lots of names/brands/subsidiaries used, because otherwise it is hard for readers and editors to tie together huge conglomerates. For exmaple, without the Viacom template finding all of its networks/cable-channels is more difficult. Conversely, I am not convinced that every company in the world needs such a template, because many companies have one brand, one structure of products, etc that does not need a template. The reason for these templates to exist is not the board of directors portion (as far as I am concerned, that can go), but rather the brand-names/subsidiaries/DBAs/etc that comprise a conglomerate, such as Viacom. Conversely, it is interesting to see how much disporpotionate power a single man, Peter Godsoe, has in governing five corporations. For example, if John Doe sits on the boards of every major player in one industry or related industries, that is incredibly interesting and should be made quite visible both here in Wikipedia and in society at large. Much ado is always made about the vertical length of articles, such as by these templates appearing at the bottom of the article. I say: get over it; webpage length is not a fossil fuel; we are not going to run out. —optikos 18:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this TfD should be removed...there's an overwhelming consensus. --J@red [T]/[+] 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the above templates are kept, should the decision at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Microsoft be reversed? That corporate nav template was deleted for the exact reasons the ones above have been proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it should be reversed. The people here believe so, anyway. --J@red [T]/[+] 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is misleading to say that the Microsoft template was deleted. What actually happened was that it was broken up so that only the relevant portions would appear on a given page. The issue here is basically that there's absolutely no reason that a link to the Disney Channel should appear on Steve Jobs. And giving the user masses of trivial information drowns out the information they're looking for. So the templates are clearly doing something wrong. No sane person would say to salt the earth here, but no, template Microsoft should not be restored, and these templates do need some serious revision. I suggest that their inclusion on specific be thought through as the series box guidelines demand - in terms of whether every link is relevant to the page that it's on. And that alternate templates for the companies be designed for pages like, say, iPod and ESPN that shouldn't have the full template.

In practice, it's probably not feasable to do this as a response to this deletion nomination, because there's too many, and it's just a terrifyingly daunting task. Is there a WikiProject this could be taken to? Phil Sandifer 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as categories involve articles that are simply related by whatever characteristic the category categorizes. These show companies directly owned by another. Staxringold 19:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not coincidental that we have different policies for categories and massive ugly boxes of doom. Phil Sandifer 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strongest keep I've ever made. I'm not kidding, either. SushiGeek 06:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As above, they are useful navigational aids, particularly for companies with many subsidiaries. I don't think categories would be anywhere near as clear or useful. Johnwalton 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep useful and bring related information together nicely - dont' see Microsoft as a controlling precedent Trödel 10:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving this to a WikiProject would be fine. The precedent re:Template:Microsoft was to delete the main template, and create Template:Microsoft products, which lacks any financial information or employee data. At the end of all this the same policy should be applied to all kept corp nav templates, so either Template:Microsoft should return in its entirety with directors, assets, and financial data, or the remaining corp nav templates should be formatted as resulted in Template:Microsoft products. A WikiProject could setup guidelines for these things, as is needed. For example, see Template:GCI. Kurieeto 14:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will go ahead and say that Template:GCI is so inexcusable as to make clear that we cannot do corporate templates this way. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 19 March 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was not available. This template was clearly created as a test. As such it qualified for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G2). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test111111 edit

Template:Test111111 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems to be a user test. It's mostly the same as what Template:Commonwealth Games looked like at the time. TimBentley 19:06, 17 March 2006 (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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Honduras infobox edit

Template:Honduras infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete.It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use—not needed. MJCdetroit 18:44, 17 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Culture_of_Taiwan 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Culture of Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - was copied and pasted from the main Taiwan article (straight duplication of content there) - overlaps with Culture of Taiwan. Cormaggio @ 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. The template seems to contain info and pictures that the main article lacks. I saw someone should merge the two and make a redirect from the template. --J@red [T]/[+] 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the template is a complete copy and paste [1] from the main article - see the section Taiwan#Culture_of_Taiwan. There may have been very minor changes to the content on the template in the meantime, but it is relatively insignificant. Cormaggio @ 00:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but on the Main Article Culture of Taiwan there is a lot of info on the template that isn't on the actual page. I say that the person trying to delete this should first make a merge, then delete, as there may be a lot of valuable info on this page. --J@red [T]/[+] 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, please look at what I am saying. The text on Template:Culture of Taiwan was directly copied and pasted from Taiwan, not from Culture of Taiwan - as the above diff shows. A copy and paste is a direct violation of the GFDL. Whatever content is on Culture of Taiwan is an entirely separate matter - no merge would be allowed anyway, because the template text itself comes from a different article, Taiwan. However, you are right that some content was changed - I've added a note on Talk:Taiwan to get people there to take any newly added content which is useful. Cormaggio @ 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've been through the two versions line by line, and there's nothing in the template that isn't in the article itself (the article has more information). Can someone please just delete it? Cormaggio @ 09:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete copy and paste fork. copy text into article if it is still being used anywhere--Jiang 06:17, 28 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Haiti infobox 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Haiti infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use not needed. MJCdetroit 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this template is outdated and contains much less information.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:CanadianForces 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:CanadianForces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Appears to be a "no commercial use" template, similar to the deleted {{CanadaCrownCopyright}}. --Carnildo 06:38, 17 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Succession box-DE 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template appears to be a fork of Template:succession box but doesn't add anything to the existing concept. In addition, it doesn't appear to be used anywhere. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Not done 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not done (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
inappropriate hold request: editors don't own articles, and template:Inuse or template:Hangon satisfy this role much more appropriately. Template is not in use anywhere; I added a category to it so I could check where it was used, and it is only linked to from its creator's user page. Mangojuice 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Jonathunder 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --larsinio \----(poke)––(prod)----/ 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously not needed. The two aforementioned templates do the same job. --J@red [T]/[+] 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the opening of articles, things are not cited nor necessarily in complete thoughts. this template is needed for authors dedicated to their page but need a long time to finish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by alegoo92 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. {{Inuse|a while}} already covers it, and looks a lot better, too. --Tifego 03:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the template creator agrees with me: [2] Mangojuice 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because that is what a sandbox article if for: get a complex topic to a minimum plateau of stability before releasing it to the universe —optikos 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suggests ownership of a page. Chairman S. Talk 09:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: alegoo92 is apparently the only supporter of this template, and he deleted a couple of the the "Delete" votes before (which I restored)... –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is any article on Wikipedia done? gren グレン 06:09, 24 March 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17&oldid=1149973700"