Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8, 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trains portal/DYK date edit

Template:Trains portal/DYK date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I would like to create some generalized discussion regarding templates. Especifically the practicality/usefulness of templates such as this one which add very little information to the talk page yet they sometimes clutter a talk page so much that templates alone cover a complete screen. I believe templates such as this one are a form of advertisement. Internal advertisement but advertisement nonetheless. Also, I believe templates should not cross from Wiki to Portal space with the exception of {{portalpar}}. What is really the usefulness of a template such as this? I see none since we only learn a rather trivial fact about the article which does not relate directly to its content. Joelito (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, templates like this are not useful. Information like this should be included as a normal comment on the talk page; it has no special relevance to future users. Unlike some similar boxes, such as those for failed FAC candidates, there is no discussion of the article's merits to which a link would be useful; knowing that an article was on "did you know" is entirely useless to most editors and readers. Delete or modify to be much less conspicuous. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is now, it is much smaller. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template was not designed as an advertisement. It follows the same practice as the messagebox used for the main page (which, in essence, is a portal itself) DYK notification, as you can see on Talk:Obliteration by incorporation, Talk:Strépy-Thieu boat lift and Talk:Catherine Cranston, all of which are on the main page DYK today. The usefulness of this template is that it gives me a way to mark an article as being used in the portal's DYK section so I can avoid reusing DYK facts from the same article. The only other method of keeping track of which articles were used in the portal's DYK to avoid repeats is to maintain a list that would likely be nominated for deletion even faster. Slambo (Speak) 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For keeping track of DYKs you may create an archive as the Wikipedia Did you know does. Something alone the lines of Portal:Trains/Did you know/Archive. This would definitely not be deleted since it's accepted practice. Joelito (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Portal:Trains/Did you know? That in itself didn't work out as well as might be thought; a fact from Hammond circus train wreck was reused even though it was listed in the archive, and as the archive grows, it becomes more difficult to determine if a fact has been used before. I looked for accepted practices elsewhere and found the messagebox used by the main page so adopted a similar practice which has helped me greatly to avoid repeats. I can't use the same criteria as the main page (that of maintaining a maximum age for listed articles) because rail transport articles aren't created as often as general knowledge articles. Slambo (Speak) 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it to accomplish this task while being as slim and unobtrusive as possible, let me know what you think. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern and reason for deletion is not obstrusiveness, it's using a template in main space for highlighting a trivial fact of portal space. Joelito (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that update. Interested readers can still get to the archives and suggestion pages through links on the portal itself, so removing them from here is no great loss. Removing the graphic means that I'll need to take a closer look and actually read the text to verify if it's there among other templates (a cursory glance of the page for the question mark and train icon graphics won't be enough), but I can get used to that too. Slambo (Speak) 17:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Would you prefer to move the template to say Portal:Trains/DYK date? I'm indifferent on where the template physically resides. Slambo (Speak) 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is not about location it's about having the template on the article because it does not have any relevance or adds any useful information/discussion regarding the article. It is a template that expresses some trivial information regarding portal space and not main space. Joelito (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other suggestions for avoiding repeating facts other than maintaining a list (which is already done and I've already found is a suboptimal resolution to the problem)? The real problem seems to be that we're talking about tracking metadata, or data about the article and not the article's content. Until we have a better place for metadata (perhaps a feature request for a meta tab similar to the discussion tab is in order), the talk page is the best place to hold editor-defined metadata about an article. Slambo (Speak) 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Portal:Did you know is the appropiate way to archive. If by accident an article is featured twice it's no big deal. When this problem is spotted it is simply removed. ALso it's little harm is made since there are many new editors/visitors who probably haven't read that old DYK. Again, I believe meta-data (as you perfectly defined it, honestly I couldn't describe it better myself), and particularily that belonging to portal space should not be stored/displayed in main wikipedia space. Joelito (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These templates are used on talkpages so they are nonintrusive. Second, the template provides links to the portals which are nicer and have a more friendly structure than categories, increasing their use and aiding the reader. Third one of my articles has this template on it, and I am a vain creature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful organizational template. --CComMack 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to expand why is this useful and what advantages/disadvantages it has over archiving in portal space? Joelito (talk) 18:31, 10 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavigationBox2 edit

Delete as per reasons listed by lister. –Whaleyland 15:23, 9 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box3 edit

Delete as obsolete and redundant. Ardric47 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons listed by lister. –Whaleyland 15:23, 9 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box2 edit

Delete as obsolete and redundant. Ardric47 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons listed by lister. –Whaleyland 15:24, 9 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:18+ edit

Delete as unnecessary, orphaned, and its only content being a fair-use image. Ral315 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ral315. AIUI fair use images are not be fair use in templates anyway. Thryduulf 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ral315. Just use [[Image:Blah Blah Blah|25px]] rather than using a template. --Primat e ^#101 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above DannyM 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably intended to indicate that an article is not suitable for minors, but Wikipedia is not censored anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle. — nathanrdotco m ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 14 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belize infobox edit

Template:Belize infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformatted & updated to the Template: Infobox country standard. A single use template that is no longer needed. Not much in the discussion page either. — MJCdetroit 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The infobox is merged into the article itself, and merged entries are not normally deleted, but are kept as redirects. Preserve its edit history and talk page outside of the template namespace. They contain useful information on how the infobox come to its being. — Insta ntnood 20:10, 13 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USSenPresProTempEmer edit

Not used. Already incorporated in Template:USSenPresProTemp. —Markles 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's used nowhere and already incorporated in its "mother" article. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with (and inferior to) {{USSenPresProTemp}}. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:28 UTC
DeleteNot used anywhere and redundant --Primat e ^#101 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Being the creater of it, I am fine with it being deleted. I originally created it when the {{USSenPresProTemp}} did not have the names in it. -Behun
- Actually, would a redirect be better. That way when the list builds up and it separates from the main one, it could be recreated and any politician referencing this would automatically being changed. Behun 00:19, 13 May 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 keep all Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobel Medicine, Template:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Template:Nobel Prize in Literature Laureate, Template:Nobel Peace Prize Laureate edit

The medicine template is several hundred names, 2/3 of a screen long, and only set to get longer. Articles covered by the template are already in a category and most have succession boxes. Inelegant duplication of information.--nixie 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the articles covered by the template don't have any succession boxes, contrary to what you are claiming. Also, this is a new template. I just made it NOW. And I'm in the process of "shortening" it (refer to the templates I made for the Nobel Peace Prize, Economic and Literature Prizes). And besides, succession boxes might be inappropriate. One Laureate does not succeed another. For one thing, a previous winner is not addressed as an "ex-Nobel laureate" or "former Nobel winner". The list, by its nature, just grows. So it is given that the template is LONG, given the awards started in 1901. So what matters now is how to make it shorter, or at least, make the list LOOK shorter. And for those who might be overwhelmed by the length of the template, that's why there is a "Hide" stub. So let's see first the finished product before judging it! Joey80 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nixie further argued that aside from being long, the text is too small for old people. That argument is circular and self-defeating. If you make it large, then it will be longer. Joey80 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joey80 and plain common sense... these templates are useful, informative and besides, as far as I know many templates that are long-ish use smaller font. These are in no means the longest templates on WP, and again, there is always the "hide" box. PageantUpdater 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and as for "most having succession boxes", I clicked on ten of the Medicine prize winners at random and none had succession boxes relating to their Nobel award. PageantUpdater 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a discussion page, then I might just as well expressed my opinion, although I am not registered. Based on how I see it, deletion must be the last answer. And unfortunately in this case, someone recommended deletion for a template that has just been made. So clearly, other options have not been explored, and they immediately jumped to the conclusion to delete it because it is too long. Well, how about just "slicing" the template. The official Nobel page "slices" up the winners' list in 20-years span (is that right? or 20-year span). That can also be done here.

Keep. This is much better than the succession boxes or slicing into chunks- arbitrary selections of other winners would be worse than nothing (any remaining succession boxes need to be rooted out and killed). The "Best Picture Oscar" box is substantially longer. What I would like to see would be the template set by default to 'hide', and then reader could decide for themselves whether to open it. Is that possible? Henry ^Flower 09:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative and useful box to link to other laureates. Much better than the succession boxes. Skinnyweed 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very good for getting an overview of the laureates. I agree with Joey80's arguements. --Mecil 13:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to succession boxes and Delete: I'm sorry, but this is unwieldy and unworkable. We already have a detailed list of all the names in each template, on List of Nobel laureates to which each is linked. This would be much better handled using a variation on the well-established {{succession box}} templates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert and delete as Phil Boswell. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Henry Flower. MiraLuka 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's lots of templates like this one, check, for example, the bottom of Bill Clinton article or the Oscar templates. Nobel laureates do not succeed, it's not a title, is a lifetime award. Afonso Silva 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alll useful and sucession boxes are unwieldy. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, as useful DannyM 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but use hide option. --Ton e 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I incorporated some space-saving measures into the Econ and Medicine boxes: Replace (YY) with YY:, remove vertical lines & replace "and" with a dot. Maybe someone can do this for the other boxes too, where it should cut down three or four lines and remove visual clutter. I should add that the boxes are well-done and def'ly easier to maneuver than succession boxes. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Updated): I moved discussion about formating to the Econ template talk site. ~ trialsanderrors 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to the new hide functionality (as for instance in {{Cold War}}). //Halibu tt 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also created Template:Nobel Prize in Physics and Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry which should suffer the same fate as the above templates. ~ trialsanderrors 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some reservations, namely: they (like bulky infoboxes, etc.) should not be foisted upon articles whose main author(s) don't want them. In this regard I partially sympathize w/ nom. Saravask 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already updated the templates for Medicine, Economics, Peace and Literature (trialsanderrors, you might also use the new format for the other templatez). I'm not really sure if the years should be left in bold font, but it is currently set as such. But what matters is when one clicks on the name to get to that name's main article, the name is also highlighted (in bold font) in the template, which reduces the confusion on where he/she is located in the sequence of Laureates. This shoots down the original argument that the font size is too small. For the argument that it is long, well, as stated before, the "hide" function can be set as default. Joey80 08:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I suggest we move style discussions to Template talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jan.Kamenicek 16:28, 14 May 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 Circeus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small-time band edit

Template:Small-time band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (by what links here and google). It suggests adding to a page which has since been deleted , so it shouldn't be used in the future. Delete SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No use any more--the page it suggests adding the article to is deleted, and no pages use it (presumably because articles that need to be moved/deleted/cleaned-up use different templates).--Primat e ^#101 23:40, 8 May 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.