Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4 edit

Template:ellie 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 Speedily deleted. Mike Peel 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, but doesn't really meet G2. There has been a slew of this 'ellie' related vandalism recently, I would like to know where it all comes from! — RichardΩ6 12 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Arrant nonsense (G1) Has been deleted and speedy deleted before. It's Medoesnotexist (talk · contribs)'s only edit; who made the last two, and is there a connection? (And death to kittens!) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:29, 4 August 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:Top Ten Doubles Teams as of November 19, 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 delete. Singu larity 06:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rather bizarre snapshot of one week late last year, orphaned and made redundant by the more functional {{Top five female doubles}} and {{Top five male doubles}}. —-DeLarge 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the coolest template title ever. Still, delete it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of how an arbitrary and date-specific template inevitably gets ignored --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:22, 5 August 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:Db-meta 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 invalid: user does not understand the template structure —METS501 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be a duplicate of {{db-reason}}. It contains the same text, except for this one doesn't give you a warning that no reason was given.. GrooveDog (talk) 19:27, 4 August 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:Noedit 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. Singu larity 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Requested nobody else edit [the article]" until "the aforementioned editor is satisfied"? Any legitimate use would be redundant to Template:Inuse or one of the related templates. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inuse is the better template: less like an attempt to own the article. J ɪ m p 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of "Inuse". — Reinyday, 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above comments. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{inuse}} is sufficient. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inuse is more specific.--Dave101→talk 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, don't just delete. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. There are currently no significant links to this template, and no transclusions at all. There's no need to redirect it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a logical thing to type in, and redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:35, 5 August 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:Top ten north american male golfers 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 all. IronGargoyle 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Template:Top ten male golfers, so why the need for another list that is based on some "north american" (sic) bias? ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have it for tennis so I figured we could do it for golf also. And by the way I am making a top 10 for all the continents, North America is the only continent where all 10 are from the same country.

Template:Top ten European male golfers

michfan2123 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a need for these extra templates, they will need to be updated each week and the top golfers like Woods and Mickelson already have an over abundance of templates on their articles. Catchpole 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily update it every week. The Top ten North American male tennis players template has been around since May and it has not been deleted. I do not see how it is any different than the golf one.

michfan2123 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this a bit of a long way for a shortcut? The point of templates is so you can make edits to a single page which will automatically update on all the other pages it's transcluded to, thereby avoiding the need to manually edit those pages. But as players come into or drop out of the top 10, you'll need to manually edit those pages anyway to add/remove the template itself. There's also the issue of original research. Do the lists exist elsewhere, or did you create them yourself using the data at owgr.com? --DeLarge 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the World Rankings matter. In terms of qualifications for other tournaments, it is only the world rankings that have any bearing on a player's ability to play in a tournament. Supertigerman 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) As per arguments by ZimZalaBim ^talk below for Template:Top ten north american male golfers, and violations of WP:OR and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the following similar templates should be deleted:[reply]
Template:Top ten Oceanic male golfers
Template:Top ten Asian male golfers
Template:Top ten African male golfers
Template:Top ten South American male golfers
Template:Top ten European male golfers
Supertigerman 21:50, 4 August 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:Pacino movies 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. IronGargoyle 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unhelpful in the encyclopedic sense. A worst-case scenario of this usage would be for an ensemble film, there would be a dozen templates at the end of an article covering each actor's filmography. The filmography for Al Pacino ~~is just a click away~~ should be a click away at his article, but the template is used instead of a filmography list per many actors' articles. The template is highly unnecessary in this regard. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your're right Erik. But this would also make all of the director templates on wikipedia redundant also as you can click on the director and see his filmography too. Particularly for an actor of Pacino's status I don't think there's much difference. If we do delete such a template then I'd delete all the other templates for directors on wikipedia. They are intended to serve as a quick navigation but when filmographies exist it does make it seem unnecessary. But please note if you delete this template you also delete his main filmography which is also this template and it shouldn't be!!!!! SOme user like on Pierce Brosnan's article thinks its good to rmeove the full filmography which includes details of characters played with a template and this should be forbidden. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacino's main article should have a filmogrpahy like this not a template:

Year	Film	Role	Other notes
1998	Dil Se	Preeti Nair	Winner, Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival
	Soldier	Preeti Singh
	Premante Idera	Jaanu	Telugu film (Dulhan Dilwale Ki is the Hindi version)
1999	Raja Kumarudu	Rani	Telugu film (Prince No. 1 is the Hindi version)
	Sangharsh	CBI Officer Reet Oberoi
	Dillagi	Rani	Guest Appearance
2000	Kya Kehna	Priya Baxi	Nomination, Filmfare Best Actress Award
	Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega	Jahnvi
	Mission Kashmir	Sufiya Parvez	Screened at the Stockholm International Film Festival

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if actor templates would be comparable to director templates. Director templates are a little more useful because there's generally one director per film. Al Pacino is not the only presence in his films, so other actor templates would need to be included to keep film articles balanced. Of course, like I mentioned, an article on an ensemble film would be overloaded with actor templates. Director templates may need to be evaluated separately, I believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the distinction makes sense to me-- but of course the template should not be deleted until the material is reworked as a filmography. The excessive use of templates of this cross-referene sort is being to impact the readability & organization of articles. DGG (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the template with an actual list of the filmography, so this shouldn't be an issue any longer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think director templates are fine because the director is the main creative force behind an entire film. They should be treated in much the same way as authors, who also receive their own template. Actors and actresses are obviously different from this standard, and given the fact that they often are connected with many more individual films, the resulting template can become overly cluttered - as is the case with the template in question, in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Director templates are good, actors templates are bad. –Fred Bradstadt 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above and ample precedent. There are a bunch of other actor templates currently listed here at TfD, and the same argumants made there apply here. PC78 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 9 August 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:Japan dam 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. There are issues with this template, but it looks like they will be dealt with elsewhere. Mike Peel 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or move to user page to allow migration of desired fields). New creation; redundant to {{Infobox dam}}. Also has variable names in Japanese. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Move to userspace (something like User:Theanphibian/sandbox) until its ready to be an English wiki template - should be in userspace until ready for distribution about the wiki. And before reestablishing it, consider instead simply making ONE template for "Infobox dam", there's no reason to have these sorted by country - I don't see why it can't be a universal template. ZueJay (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a universal template, see my comments on the talk page of Template:Infobox dam. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information The variable names being in Japanese are the point of having it, so that the least amount of information has to be adjusted. I've already made two articles about the Japanese dams that I certainly feel are productive additions. You're welcome to migrate all the information to an English version of the box, but I'm not a fan of being made to do more work just because you want to see one less template on Wikipedia.

I thought I had sufficiently explained the purpose of it, but after reading the last two comments, I'm not so sure. This is a direct copy of ja:Template:ダム - the minimal amount is changed so that it's appearance in articles is in all English, this has already been accomplished, aside from one or two things it's in its final form. I could care less if it had to be moved to my user space as long as it could still be used in articles like Tokuyama Dam and I could still import more of them. I don't want to use the Template:Infobox dam, where it's filled with warnings on the front page that it was made by a novice infobox maker and could have problems, not to mention that someone would have to do a lot to migrate the information and would hinder further progress on these articles.

Please also have a look at the Japanese dam articles. They are absolutely beautiful, some of the best work on Wikipedia in my opinion, and to the extent of my investigation have absolutely no presence on the English Wikipedia yet. Tell me what your approaches would be, I would be more than happy to hear them.

I've even done this before, see Template:German plant for another copied template that's already being used on dozens of articles. If a different language Wikipedia has a great template and already looked up the data, why bother making an inferior one here? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated {{German plant}} for deletion, too, We shouldn't have templates in a language that editors on this wiki might not understand. The purpose of moving the nominated template to user-space would be to allow you, or another editor, to copy any relevant code to an English language template, It would be removed from any articles on which it is used. If there are problems with {{Infobox dam}}, it should be fixed, not cast-of in favour of a second version. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to improve articles, then keep. There's nothing wrong with the content shown in the articles. I don't agree with "We shouldn't have templates in a language that editors on this wiki might not understand" at all. The templates are not in another language, the variable names are right next to the field in the infobox. If it absolutely must, under any circumstances, have the variables translated to English, then it shouldn't be deleted until it is copied and edited with this version phased out. I would like to request more comments on this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're "working on it" it should be in userspace until its "article-ready"; of that, I have no doubt. I have several articles and article snippets I've kept in userspace because they're just not ready for article-space use yet.

As for Infobox dam - it needs improvement; please feel free to fix it instead of creating more templates. I think the novice editor's goal was to simply let folks know that the template might not be perfect. Certainly, where this is an encyclopedia built on consensus and the contributions of multiple editors, your input to improve this template would be greatly appreciated, especially by those of us not as familiar with editing templates. When in doubt, see if you can find a Wikiproject which this falls within the scope of and ask around there. This might fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering. ZueJay (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone editing Arimine Dam, for example, will see:

| 堤高=140.0| 堤頂長=500.0| 堤体積=1,568,000| 総貯水容量=222,000,000| 有効貯水容量=204,000,000| 流域面積=220.0| 湛水面積=512.0

That's simply not acceptable, on this English-language wiki. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the issue, then I simply don't agree. I've been scouring the Wikipedia policies, and I don't see a rule for this. There are many ways this can be phased out over time, a bot could be set up to tackle them all and change the variable names. I could set up the template to accept both English and Japanese variable names. In fact, I sort of like the bot idea, I would like to try it. The data in the infoboxes is static, perfectly verifiable, and displayed clearly on the page. This discussion clearly needs other people because I think you and I are going to agree to disagree on that one. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's problems with Template:Infobox dam ("filled with warnings", "made by a novice"), why not just fix them? Unless there's info here which is specific to Japan, and which cannot be added to the current template, then this just looks redundant. --DeLarge 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack that infobox. The way to make good templates, I've found, is to copy a lot of stuff, and there's a lot of good stuff on both of these. One justification I see for two versions is that dams in Japan have uniformly released certain information which will ABSOLUTELY be available for Japan dams but may be difficult or impossible to attain for other dams. Even in the Japanese Wikipedia I've discovered that they didn't find much use for the template for foreign dams, 99.9% of the usage on the Japanese Wikipedia are just for domestic dams. Anyway, they don't absolutely have to be separated, but I think there is a strong case for a Japan specific infobox for those reasons. Maybe we could have a Template:Infobox dam/Japan? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's where you make fields optional. If we haven't got info on that field, then it simply doesn't display. I think different infoboxes for different countries makes it more difficult, not easier, despite the fact that certain countries/companies/owners have specific info available that is not the same across the board. The only field I really see being unable to complete for most other dams is "Volume Utilized" - that'll be difficult to determine for most dams, and could be construed as unclear. ZueJay (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close this discussion I've developed a tool to translate the variable names as well. My current plan is to make usage of the variables {{{English variable|{{{Japanese variable}}}}}}. The variable names will be in English, and everything will have changed with this by the time someone comes along to make a decision (or makes a comment at this rate). Like I said, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone on the direction of this, TfD is the wrong place. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be speedily deleted later if merged with the dam infobox, which I think other people have done work with, and I'll be working on myself soon as well. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 6 August 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:Country table 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. Mike Peel 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This table was created about a year ago, as a way to create tables where the first column is a link to a country. However, it was only ever used on three pages - and I have already converted those three pages to use standard wiki table syntax and flag template syntax. I don't see the benefit in having user learn a "new" syntax specifically for these types of tables. Also, in each of the three pages I updated, the resultant wikicode was substantially smaller. — Andrwsc 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use it at Romani people by country and it proved to be very useful, having the countries already listed in alphabetical order. For diasporas or other human groups living in many of the contemporary states, this template is the best for starting and expanding an article about them. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest that the same effect could be achieved by "boilerplate" table markup with the flagged list of countries in column one. Editors can copy this boilerplate to their own articles and select and add to rows as they need them. This would be preferable to forcing the user to adapt to a different table syntax (with multiple limitations, as described on that talk page), and using a template with O(n) lookup of each entry as it is parsed. Andrwsc 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as there are advantages to each method. I'd just like to note that all the are messy and unnecessary as you could just give the parameters themselves full country names. –Pomte 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so people can use it if they find it useful. It is in no way harmful to offer this template as an option. — Reinyday, 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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:contra dance 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. Mike Peel 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just over the top to create a navblock just because a topic has two subpages, which are clearly linked from the contra dance article. — 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The templates were first made for the related articles, where it's not so obvious that there are related articles, then later posted to the lead article. It is/was used on three articles. Pending the possibility the template may disappear, I've orphaned the template, and directly placed the navigation tables on the articles in question, to save me the trouble of recreating navigation tables again.. -- Yellowdesk 04:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of each subpage it clearly says, main article contra dance. I see no need to navigate between the subpages other than via the links provided. Put them in your watchlist if you think otherwise. 199.125.109.11 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template proved instantly useful to me when editing and coordinating changes between main & sub-pages, and I was surprised later to read the suggestion that it was useless. When 199.125.109.xxx ("199") deleted it from the contra dance article, three editors (including me) of that article independently acted to restore the template and resolve a page-layout issue with it. This tells me that it is useful to the people for whom it was intended. The contra dance article is under active development, and the sub-articles are recent creations. It is premature to presume, within days of its creation, that this template will not grow, just as it would be premature to delete all redlinks in such a short time frame. Also, please note that the first putative vote (above) to "delete" is in fact not a separate vote but part of the nom. --rich<Rich Janis 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

Active development? One paragraph and two sentences added in three months of less than 50 edits (6 minor edits which add no significant content in the last week) hardly seems like active development. However that is not the issue, the issue is cluttering up an article with a navblock with links to each of the subpages. Most of the navblocks I see are used to relate similar pages, so that as above (top of this page at right) if you really wanted to delete an article instead of a template, or an image and so on the "Deletion debates" navblock is an easy way to get where you need to be. On the other hand the TOC and see also is a much more practical way to get to subpages of an article. 199.125.109.11 01:17, 8 August 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:Top ten North American male tennis players 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. IronGargoyle 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact same thing as the golfing one which is going to be deleted so it makes sense to delete this also. michfan2123 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are the other tennis ones okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MC (talk • contribs).
Delete I think that is too much. We already have Top 10 tennis players, we don't need regional top 10. --Göran Smith 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Göran Smith. It creates an unnecessary overload of information at the bottom of the articles. The international "Top 10" template is adequate. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 11 August 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.