Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3 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. (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tasman Sea edit

One of several templates for oceans or seas created by User:Akanemoto to put at the bottom of country articles. This one has been removed from all countries. These templates clutter the bottom of articles and serve little purpose. New Zealand already has five such navigational templates and would have many more if we didn't occasionally prune them.-gadfium 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all those reasons. There are quite a few more that could go the same way. Ziggurat 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very small. If people want to know what borders the Tasman Sea, they should go to Tasman Sea and look it up, not rely on a million templates. --Thelb ⁴ 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same thing as Thelb. Plus there are only two articles that have the template.
Strong Delete there's no additional information in the infobox, only cluttering the article. Somebody should look his other infoboxes. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the above reasons. As for Indon's comment to check the other infoboxes about seas and oceans, that is over 500 placements in the last few days. Indonesia for example as 12 seas in its vicinity - thus 12 infoboxes??? --Merbabu 13:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Great enthusiasm obviously, sadly misdirected. Someone should have nipped it all earlier... SatuSuro 15:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waste of template space. Countries? There are only two listed! --Bob 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is not really necessary. As above, two countries is not really enough for this template to be kept. S-man64 09:55, 17 November 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3di 16 edit

This template was previously deleted on October 12, but a DRV consensus overturned, citing its need to usage in WP:IH. Even I'll admit that this re-listing feels a tad bureaucratic, but given the controversial history of highways on Wikipedia, I'd rather be very thorough. This is procedural only, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for consistency purposes pending discussion on WT:IH. -- NORTH ^talk 17:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as better served by text links. In Interstate 16, a text link can describe I-516 in a sentence or two, being more informative than this template. In Interstate 516, the statement that it is a spur of I-16 is all that is needed. --NE2 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make a better 3di template that does not resort to using these single-use meta-templates. Providing a single link that will be usable in only one place is not what templates are supposed to be for. --Polaron | Talk 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I've already said elsewhere. I really don't see the harm in keeping these templates, plus having a text link with info is not supposed to be the purpose of this template or the whole 3di-collection of templates. Info on I-516 is intended for the I-516 article, not on the I-16 article. If the I-516 article didn't exist, then it'd be a different story. As for the value of consistency, here's my opinion, take it or leave it: when I look for spurs of an Interstate, I look for the 3di box. Without it, I'd think, "OK, where are the spurs?" since I utilize the box more efficiently than I do a standalone link. To the proponents of a simple link with info - I want to see all of the spurs at a glance with no cluttering information. Some may take that statement and say that the info ("Spur of I-16") associated with the template is "cluttering information", but that is not my intent nor is it the point I'm trying to make. My point: give me the spurs of the Interstate and their location, nothing else. Another thing, if we delete these templates, where will it end? One day, people will want to delete double-spur templates, then triple-spur, all the way up to the point where every 3di template save {{3di}} itself will be deleted. Who knows, maybe that one will be as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've said doesn't require the use of a template. A simple table works fine here. As I said, let's try and design a better template, just like the ones you use for junction/exit lists. These tables are much simpler than exit lists so it should be straightforward. We already have {{3di row}} which can be used for each row entry. All that's needed is a little tweaking. --Polaron | Talk 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be replaced by "See also: Interstate 516" (on the article on I-16) or the like. Plus the list on the template is a one item list. SupaStarGirl 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:IH, TMF, and all other reasons I've listed at DRV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TMF. --Holderca1 23:02, 6 November 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 (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox allblack edit

Delete Superceded by Template:Rugger and unused. Bob 16:38, 3 November 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 (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby Player edit

Delete Superceded by Template:Rugger and unused. Bob 16:38, 3 November 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 Okay, people disagree here for now, but if the compatibility issues could be resolved with e.g. some creative parametricizing, this could be redirected as redundant. Fix it first, then redir. (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) It appears this has already happened, and looks good now. Of course, merging/redirecting doesn't require a deletion debate. (Radiant) 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Roman emperor edit

This template is superfluous as it is almost identical to Template:Infobox Monarch, I suggest redirecting it there. Philip Stevens 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I don't just say that as I created it! As you should have seen at Template talk:Infobox Roman emperor when you tagged it, there are various differences to the monarch infobox -

Roman emperors, by definition were male (yes there were empresses, but they'ld need another box) and so need 'wife' not 'spouse'
we refer to 'dynasties' of Roman emperors not 'royal house's
Roman emperors were not crowned nor did they have a coronation anthem so these fields will always be irrelevant to them
their 'title' will always be Roman emperor.

User|Neddyseagoon 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Andrew Dalby 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neddyseagoon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, Infobox Monarch is used for Julius Caesar, and looks fine, as stated above the information contained there is identical to this infobox and Template:Infobox Emperor already redirects there.--NeilEvans 04:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Caesar isn't an emperor! :-) So you can't use the emperor box for him, since you need 'dictator' not 'emperor' in the title section. Although 'consort' still doesn't look right. This is no reason per se to delete the emperor box. User|Neddyseagoon 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Julius Caesar being Dictator rather than Emperor, well that information is imput by the user anyway, so doesn't matter which template was used.NeilEvans 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Well, yes, he could use the monarch box, though 'spouse' is still a problem, since we wouldn't really speak of his 'consorts'. User|Neddyseagoon 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the point of having to templates which can easily be merged into one template. NeilEvans 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Delete or redirect to and modify Monarch to address any compatibility issues. WP:HORSE. John Reid 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to weigh in again, but keeping the Emperor template really does seem to make sense - there are 100 odd of them, and so it would save entering 'Roman Emperor' 100 odd times in the 'title' heading, and modifying Infobox monarch to make it compatible seems odd when we already have Infobox Roman emperor which does the job.User|Neddyseagoon 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Emporer already redirects to Template: Infobox Monarch, so I don't see the need to have a separate infobox for Roman Emporer. The template for Emporer can be used for an Emporer of any state or kingdom, such as Rome or China or Japan. Since that template already redirects to Monarch then so should Roman Emporer, and then modify the the monarch infobox for compatibility.

NeilEvans 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Emporer is misspelt for a start. User|Neddyseagoon 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as entering "Roman Emporer" in about 100 articles, where is the hardship in that, I would think that you wouldn't just enter Roman Emporer anyway, but enter that person's full title.--NeilEvans 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in the name box, in the 'title'= box - and 'Roman emperor' is the full title anyway, until it gets complex with the Tetrarchy User|Neddyseagoon 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Superfluous. If you want to have different titles and/or headings, create options for them, no need for billions of different templates. --Bob 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billions?! Bit of an overreaction! Still, point taken. User|Neddyseagoon 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that the title would not always be 'emperor' for the roman emperors but rather 'caesar', 'augustus', 'princeps', 'imperator' etc. I'm not arguing for against the template, just noting the title would not be constant across emperors if completed correctly, which might nullify one of the arguments given above - PocklingtonDan 15:27, 17 November 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 (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox scooby show edit

Delete No reason for it as it has less information than Template:Infobox Television and doesn't have any specific Scooby-Doo use. Joltman 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / replace with Template:Infobox Television. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I created it, Template:Infobox Television had no "preceeding/followed by" fields. Now that it does, this template isn't of much use. --FuriousFreddy 01:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But modify Template:Infobox Television so that the paramters for the cast reflect voices. --Bob 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G7, author (FuriousFreddy) has requested deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 05:49, 9 November 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:1996 Leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Leaders’ Forum 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 M a rtinp23 13:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This infobox is not informative, because it is not relevant between APEC and the leaders, as leaders might be replaced at anytime. Why would we need a template of APEC leaders specifically for 1996? Furthemore, this template has violated the usage of fair use image Image:ApecLogo-2003.png (APEC logo) for criterion #9 per WP:FAIR — Indon (reply) — 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. delete the thing. Colipon+(T) 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I made the template and I realized that I need to make other templates for the other APEC Leaders' meeting and that would take ages... So you guys can delete it! ... - peads 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G7, author (Donmar) has requested deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too colorful anyway. __earth ^(Talk) 08:54, 9 November 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 (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MaddenNFL-Athlete and Template:EA-NHL-series edit

Delete Too trivial information for a template Mika1h 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Madden template, as it relates strongly to the Madden curse, which is important enough to get mentioned endlessly on ESPN and sports talk shows every time a new cover athlete is announced (and every time they subsequently get injured). I'm indifferent on the NHL template. -- Kicking222 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. It is the helpful information. Spy1986 22:31, 17 November 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. (Radiant) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SerbiaFairUse and Template:MontenegroFairUse edit

Delete. Foreign fair-use law is irrelevant to Wikipedia: we function under United States law. --Carnildo 02:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there actually any harm in keeping these templates? I'm not an expert on law, but even if we're only required to satisfy US law, wouldn't it still be a good idea to have these kinds of copyright templates to aid in downstream use of our content? That alone would seem like a good reason to keep. -- Ned Scott 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Even if something is fair use on Wikipedia, it might not be fair use even for a direct re-user such as Answers.com. These templates are simply an assertion that the use of the image on Wikipedia meets the Serbian or Montenegran fair-use criteria. --Carnildo 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I understand. So if the articles and the fair use images are used downstream they really should be re-evaluated for their fair use claim (since we won't know exactly how the content is being used, etc). Making a fair use claim at this point would seem to not serve a purpose, I take it. Another question, would this be helpful for someone in Serbia who wishes to view the articles and images, as they are now, hosted on Wikipedia's US servers? If not then I would say delete. -- Ned Scott 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 07:30, 7 November 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.