Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25 edit

Template:SightLandmarkDenmark 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a semi-random grab bag of Danish sights. Not a bad list but not encyclopedic, and where is Saint Canute's Cathedral in Odense, Viborg Cathedral, the Little Mermaid, the Dybbøl trenches, Kronborg Castle, Koldinghus, Ribe Cathedral, and Skamlingsbanken? Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Random listing; uncencylopedic; no criteria used to determine entries. Peregrine981 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Guinnog 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 01:56, 30 April 2007 (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:Concept automobile 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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As concept cars are rarely ever produced in any form similar to the concept, it is likely that this template, unlike other "future/timing" templates, will never be removed from articles it is on. As such, it violates WP:NDT, especially "Concept automobiles, and their derivatives if any, are subject to delays or cancellation by the automaker." — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some sort of template for things in development (or there should be); we don't need this overspecific, and wordy, template. -Amarkov moo! 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with Comment: actually the vast majority of all-new and significantly redesigned automobiles show up first at the various auto shows and magazines as Concept cars. There are usually significant changes in the car's evolution from concept, to prototype, to production; which is why a special template for Concept Car was created - to differentiate them from production automobiles and even prototypes, which are relatively close to production specifications. The template could probably use some wordsmithing to address concerns about violating the disclaimer template guideline. As explained in the guideline, it is meant to discourage making templates that warn readers about possibly offensive material - such as profanity or sexual themes. I believe that the disclaimer template guideline does not really apply here: in fact, it could be said that the template at the top of the guideline page itself would violate it's own text on disclaimer templates - as it essentially "warns" the reader that the following is only a WP:GUIDELINE, and not a firm WP:POLICY per se. Finally, deleting a template based on the blind assumption that there "is" or "should be" ... "some sort of template for things in development" is not a particularly reasonable or valid justification. Wordiness can be addressed by means other than a deletion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about the cars that will not be produced (Ford Airstream for an example)? Cars like that are built only to show off designs and new technology. Something similar to the Ford Interceptor might not be built in any form for years, even then, it might be totally different and have a different name. Template:Future automobile works better for eventual-production cars, while never-to-be-produced cars don't need a template like this as it would be permanent. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes a car "never-to-be-produced"? The Ford Shelby Cobra Concept, for example, may never see production, but who is to say Ford won't suddenly decide to produce the car at some point in the future? Likewise, an "eventual-production" car may be scrapped at any point. Most of these articles are distinctly either concept cars or just cars. It seems to me that if the article is about a concept car, the very definition of a concept car conveys all of the information shown in the template. When the car is officially announced as a production car, then edit the article to say so and add the Template:Future automobile to it. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are templates saying things like: This article talks about a tunnel that will soon be built or This article talks about a US highway currently under construction' so why should we delete this one? The Weak in Weak Keep is due to the fact that the explanation on the template is really too long! Booksworm Talk to me! 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that many of the articles in Category:Concept automobiles in fact don't use this template (pick 10 articles at random... it's hard to find even 2 that have it on the article), so it doesn't necessarily follow that the template must be permanently attached to automobile articles, or that it happens in practice. The text of the template could be changed to read something closer to {{current event}}, eg. make it clear that it isn't meant to be permanently affixed, that it should be removed once there's no longer significant news coming out about the concept car. --Interiot 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NDT is enough, it is a standing guideline. As concerns the "this is a guideline" template, I understand that the guidelines and policies apply to articles in the first place. I mean, do you have to quote sources and adhere to the MoS when editing talk pages, or even here? As concerns the very template in question, it has huge amounts of small-print text, longer than some articles the template is transcluded into, and basically boils down to "this article by force of this template may be infused by all kinds of rubbish, including speculation more or less derived from automotive media and other stuff, because this car is a concept".
The truth is that a concept car is a concept car, if somebody needs to be explained what the nature of a concept car is, there should be wikilink to concept car in the article's body, if some actual production model is developed based in this way or another on the concept car, then it should be noted in the article, before it happens or is officially announced, WP:CRYSTAL applies. PrinceGloria 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. As I said before, this template is essentially the definition of a concept car, as stated in the article on concept cars itself. Sully 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category will do the job. -- NaBUru38 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but with rewrite The template COULD potentially be useful, but not in its current form. I vote for a keep, but only on the condition that it could be rewritten in the future if it survives this vote. Jmlk17 02:00, 30 April 2007 (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:PD-USGov-Military-Coast Guard 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 redirect to Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CG. All transclusions have been replaced. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}, the Coast Guard is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. — jwillbur^talk 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and redirect. Actually I was WP:BOLD and did this already. Move to close? Nardman1 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. jwillbur^talk 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and redirect -- No brainer! // FrankB 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments and nomination. Jmlk17 02:02, 30 April 2007 (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:Modern Attack Helicopters 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As below, trivial subject, contentious content, seems divisive out of proportion with any utility it may (doubtfully) add. Guinnog 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. most comparable attacke helicopters are alredy listed in the "comparable" field under Related contents on each page. - BillCJ 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shpould not have a template on something that could be covered in the article, especially something like the concept of "advanced" what defines it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created outside of the project, duplicates material already in the standard project template which every helicopter article already gets (the "comparable aircraft" and "related development" sections). Akradecki 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Low-relevance, subjective topic for a nav box; material best belongs in the "Comparable aircraft" section. Flags are overkill in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tweaked it to current standard but I vote for deletion of meaningless template. Piotr Mikołajski 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Will always be contentious on content - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did anyone make this? Delete without requirement of explanation Booksworm Talk to me! 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a neat template, but it serves no purpose, hence...delete. Jmlk17 02:03, 30 April 2007 (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:4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial subject, flags inappropriate in a footer template, created outside the appropriate project guidelines — Akradecki 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it adds nothing to the articles.--Guinnog 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Mmx1 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contentious subject - too many users will argue that their nation's fighter should be there, but their rival nation's fighter should not, etc. - BillCJ 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not well defined category, too narrow of a subject to have its own nav box. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too subjective a category for template stability or navigational use. Flags really look awful in a nav box. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Covered by putting 4th generation jet fighter article in the See also section. -Fnlayson 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meaningless to the most readers - does not add any value. MilborneOne 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Covered by other articles. --Effer^AKS 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - --McSly 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen many pointless templates, but this one may be the most pointless (however US highways under construction is worse...) Booksworm Talk to me! 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - distinguishing between 4 & 4.5 is usually quite easy and important. Its the difference between Gen 4++ & Gen 4.5 that is usually blurred. However, I think that this template is needed, at least when it covers a wide swathe of aircrafts developed today, and helps the reader check out the comparable aircraft. Sniperz11 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds nothing to the articles.--padraig3uk 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a pretty neat template (information wise), but serves no purpose. Jmlk17 02:04, 30 April 2007 (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:Uw-longtermabuse 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Template:Uw-longtermabuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This was created as a user-warning template to employ when a user has unintentionally done something wrong ("abused" some aspect of Wikipedia, in the author's terms) for a long time, to the degree that this behaviour is felt to be disruptive. I find the idea of a canned template for that situation quite counterproductive. When a user does something wrong, the right thing to do is very simple: you politely tell them. "Please, could you stop doing X, it's bad because Y." This template doesn't help doing this and will only create bad feelings (just as its creator's intervention in an alleged case of "abusive" behaviour yesterday did). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hitherto, WP:WARN offered a tag that it described as sanctioning a "Long term pattern of abuse." The template it offered for this purpose is extremely strongly-worded, and better suited to vandalism specifically than abuse generally (see [1]). I created this new template in order to provide a more appropriate template for sanctioning long-term abuse, and changed the description of the older tag to make clear it was only for sanctioning vandalism, a shoe into which it more comfortably fits. This seems self-evidently a meritorious and necessary change. I consider this nomination - minutes after I got done spending a lot of time trying to bring the written text into conformance with what I'm told is its spirit - to be in profoundly bad faith, a fortiori when it comes on the back of a sabre-rattling threat from the person proposing deletion. This template should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place, should be removed from this process immediately, but if it must remain here I strongly urge other users to vote to keep, at least until it has existed long enough for experience to either bear out or refute the nominator's supposed concerns. If in practice this turns out to be a bad idea, then it can later be renominated.Simon Dodd 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, if you can't bring yourself to actually type out what's bothering you about what another user is doing -- and it's clearly a question of you choosing not to, since your rather verbose attempts at justifying your actions demonstrate that you're perfectly capable of doing so -- don't say anything. You want a shiny official club to hit people with? No. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny - then I suppose I ought to nominate every other template on WP:WARN for deletion, because your logic about why this template is superfluous applies with just as much force to all those others, too. Can I count on your "delete" vote for them as well?Simon Dodd 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, Sparky -- the "Mommy, other kids are doing it, too!" excuse hasn't worked since grade school. The other templates are simply timesaving devices for specific and common situations (perhaps reading templates before actually applying them would save you some grief) and not the official billy club you clearly want them to be. It would certainly take less time to type out your "abuse" concerns for uncommon and specific situations rather than 5,000 words of post-facto Why I'm Always Right and Everyone Else is Wrong verbiage. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A solution in search of problem. Reading the WP:AN thread, I get the impression that the creator is looking for some official club he can use to hit people with. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{uw-longterm}} was made for a long term pattern of vandalism, not abuse of the minor edit tag, and so on. After WP:WARN had been modified, it may not have been clear that this was the purpose, but it was. The description has now been clarified, but there is no need for a more general template, as anything more complicated should be dealt with using a custom message that explains the problem, not a general "abuse" template. JPD (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the word abuse itself is far too strong to describe something unintentional. If the template is kept it needs to lose this name and it needs to have any threat of blocking removed. No admin would block a user for a mistake, that would violate WP:BITE Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally think that kind of things are much better handled by a personally typed message than by a "fits for all" template. If the behavior is disruptive, tell them why you think it is so. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Template messages/User talk namespace discussion page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template states that "abuse is not necessarily vandalism". Well fair enough, but surely if you are accusing someone of a long term pattern of "abusive" action that isn't vandalism, you need to explain to them exactly what they are doing wrong and how they should change their ways. If I found this message on my talk page and had been doing something "abusive" unintentionally, I would be totally confused over what was being referred to. In the cases of a complicated accusation like this, a one-size-fits-all template really isn't helpful. People should take the 30 seconds to type a more specific message. Will (aka Wimt) 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns - for genuine long term abuse a personally typed message would be preferable. Addhoc 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are already far too many templates to combat vandalism and other issues on a user's page. Jmlk17 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A personal message is better than a template for this situation (i.e. WP:DTTR)--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (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:Infobox City Kuching 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. — MJCdetroit 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed. Gracenotes^T § 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. —dima /talk/ 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Originator has been inactive for eons. // FrankB 07:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Jmlk17 08:42, 28 April 2007 (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.