Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29 edit

Template:See Wiktionary 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. (non-administrator) nadav (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I endorse the decision. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This hatnote template is redundant with {{wiktionary}} and {{wiktionarypar}}. Hatnotes on the English Wikipedia are by convention used for disambiguating related terms, not providing links to sister projects; links to sister projects like Wiktionary have standardized templates and established usage guidelines (WP:SISTER, WP:GTL). --Muchness 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per redundancy with the established templates. -Amarkov moo! 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redudant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retract. But not sure now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination is it is a redundant template. Jmlk 1 7 21:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made redundant now, no use it staying here > Rugby471 ^talk 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not redundant. {{See Wiktionary}} is placed exclusively on pages such as Rancor, Anyway, and Visage, where {{wiktionary}} would be inappropriate because the Wikipedia article is about a different subject, but it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of people who search for the page are looking for the general word, not the Star Wars monster, album, or band. A hatnote is the appropriate solution. —Cryptic 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this template should be used with articles of which name is often expected by readers to be descriped (exemple: ridicule). In some cases, it means, a potential disambiguation page could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16@r (talk • contribs)
Keep, valid grounds for use have been provided by Cryptic. -- Visviva 07:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cryptic's suggestion; potentially useful in certain situations. Krimpet (talk) 05:08, 3 June 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:American Idol winners 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redudant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant template. Matthew 09:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy to Template:American Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Jmlk 1 7 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per nom. Carlosguitar 09:52, 1 June 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:Coords dec to dms 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 for now. There is significant concern about the current accuracy and usability of {{Coord}}. There should be no prejudice against renomination when those issues are resolved. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All functionality already exists in {{coord}}, which also has other features. — Andy Mabbett 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. {{Coord}} Requires at least three parameters and is lacking in precision when converting decimal to DMS. The purpose of this template is to provide a simple conversion with only two parameters (latitude and longitude), such as those a user can get from Google or Yahoo. {{Coord}} provides no decimal places of precision in seconds. The greatest precision it provides is 1 second or 101.3 feet (30.9 m). This template provides a simple conversion with two decimal places of precision in the seconds, for a precision of 1 foot (0.3 m). ●DanMS • Talk 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (author of the template)[reply]
- Comment {{coord}} works with two parameters; and with decimal places. If you think it's "lacking in precision", help to fix it! Andy Mabbett 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would not attempt to edit {{Coord}}! It’s beyond my limited template-making skills. In fact this template is the most complex one that I have made. ●DanMS • Talk 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need to edit it - you can propose or request changes on its talk page, with our without code examples. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until discussions on {{Coord}} have been progressed further. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Coordinates section and Template talk:Coord#Wikicode parsers amongst others to see that coord is not yet fully accepted by everyone. If fully accepted, delete this template. Regan123 17:06, 31 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:Notoc 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Visviva 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template simply adds the text __NOTOC__ to an article's code and nothing more. Few articles use it, and they can easily be replaced with the text that it produces. — Dream out loud 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke from orbit: it adds complexity rather than removes it. —Phil | Talk 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete No additional benefit from __NOTOC__. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as (apparently accidental) recreation of previously deleted content. -- Visviva 09:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Visviva, please check if it is linked first. There are a handful that still used this at the time of deletion. (I'm subst'ing now). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I see you're doing that, never mind. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. :-) -- Visviva 09:12, 30 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:NFL depth charts 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer used and has been effectively replaced by List of current NFL team depth charts. — Pats1 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replacing the links from various team depth chart templates (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NFL_depth_charts). Neier 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Neier. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer used, and already replaced. Jmlk 1 7 21:35, 30 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:The Pulse (Band) 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 speedy delete as spam.Circeus 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template of a non-notable band whose articles have since been deleted for failing CSD A7 (see: The Pulse (band), Sam Parker, Ben Oddie), is now unused and redundant, should be deleted. — AllynJ 20:32, 29 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:Split-Artist Album infobox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell this infobox is unused and is just a copy of Template:Infobox Album anyway. — PC78 18:05, 29 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:KiB 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This is another well-intended not-so-good idea, that causes extra complexity for little benefit. The intent here is to use this template for kilobyte notation, so that users can add code to their monobook that shows it as "kilo" or "kibi" depending on their preferences. This is confusing to both readers and editors, and is a convoluted way to "solve" something that really isn't a big deal. >Radiant< 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Radiant that this isn't nearly useful enough to overcome its complexity. This will end up causing far more problems than it solves, but I do commend the creator for attempting a unique solution. ChazBeckett 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{ADCE}} never really became popular, and such templates need to be popular to fulfil their function. Besides, this will just be more confusing rules for new users to figure out or get shouted at on their talkpages for. --ais523 17:04, 29 May 2007 (U T C)
Comment The template does not address megabyte/mebibyte, but only the unit representation MB/MiB, and I'm quite puzzled on how it could possibly confuse the readers. The user-defined behavior is not the only purpose, it has also the purpose of clarifying the use in articles allowing the editor to clearly state when a MB=MiB, so that later editor do not presume it was an oversight. It also would allow for a transitional phase, allowing for the usual notation (MB) and the 'standardized' notation MiB to co-exist while (so long as)the IEC binary notation usage is rare. It also could help with the non-breakable space between the number and the unit (compare writing 16 KB and {{KiB|16}}. IF the IEC binary notations eventually make some headway, the argument over their usage will get way worse (as a growing number of 'freshly' educated new editor will join the 'Standart-police', as illustrated by User:Sarenne), and even if they become eventually in common use, it still will take years before that happen. Contrary to some immutable 'national' preference. either the IEC binary notations will get acceptance or they won't, and if they do, the transition will be painful for years to come. (BTW, if you are going to delete Template:KiB, you should also mark for deletion template:MiB, Template:GiB and Template:TiB) - Shmget 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Radiant!. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well-intended as stated, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. Jmlk 1 7 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While well-intended, it appears to be too complex for common usage. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unfortunately messy solution to this problem. Krimpet (talk) 05:10, 3 June 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:HarryPotterWiki 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 close - without prejudice. This nomination seems to have more issues than keep or delete. TfD is not the place for edit warring, and this nomination is not helpful to the end of resolving it. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam template which links to a very non-notable wiki. This wiki receives 15-25 edits a day and offers nothing outside what Wikipedia articles can offer if they achieved FA. Matthew 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if having such a template is shown to be useful, convert to standard in-line format. -- Visviva 10:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There apparently was a standard text format template, the author of this template redirected it to "his", however. While I personally am a bit ambivalent to this Wiki... I probably support an in-line text link for this Wiki as well. Matthew
Speedy keep. Querrelous re-nomination after nominator failed to get the meta-template that creates these templates deleted instead. This is a good way both of supporting other free content information and of helping tidy up our Harry Potter articles. As for the suggestion that the Harry Potter Wiki includes nothing that a good Wikipedia article wouldn't, I think this misses the point. Our Harry Potter articles, like those of many fandoms, are full of in-universe material that violates WP:WAF. The Harry Potter Wiki, by its design, is less concerned about this. Thus the two projects have very different goals, and, more importantly, by working more closely can help each other markedly. If we were to take a bloated and mostly in-universe article like House-elf, which has exactly one paragraph of out-of-universe information, and move much of its more ridiculously detailed information to HPW we would improve both our article and theirs. This is much of the benefit of the actual sister project templates as well - we include a Wikiquote template so that people know where lists of quotes go. Likewise, we sholuld include this template because people clearly do not, at present, know where to put the bulk of their in-universe Harry Potter information. Phil Sandifer 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest, then, at the very least, that this template be revised to make clear what HPW offers than WP does not, just as a template like {{commonspar}} tells readers what sort of content will find on Commons. However, I still don't see why we should so prominently prefer this particular wiki over all the countless repositories of in-universe HP information on the net. -- Visviva 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there other GFDL Harry Potter resources I'm unaware of? Phil Sandifer 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem quite certain Template:FreeContentMeta will be closed as keep? Matthew 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phil Sandifer is offering an excellent point here. Wikipedia shouldn't be stuffed with minor trivia about things (What was the name of the Redshirt that died in the 12th Episode of Season 3 of ST:NG? - Eh?). Then again, fans interested in the topic may want to know more - thus Topic specific Wikis are created (Like Memory Alpha for Startrek) which will focus solely on those topics and provide additional in-depth information which would be consider far too specific or trivial for Wikipedia. Linking from Wikipedia to a topic specific Wiki is therefore quite sensible. Charon X/talk 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken the liberty of un-closing this debate. At present there are two for deletion and two for keeping, which is hardly a snowball. And my understanding is that normally WP:CSK would apply only in bad-faith nominations in which the only supporter of deletion was the nominator. -- Visviva 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The person who closed the template as "speedy keep" has a clear COI as he has demonstrated. Matthew 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A clear "COI"? Along with your myriad other misunderstandings, you appear to have greatly misunderstood COI. Unless you can actually substantiate such a claim - David Gerard 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm... I don't think I linked to the Wikipedia guideline, did I? Perhaps you should read Conflict of interest ("position of trust") :-). Matthew 15:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As in, substantiate or withdraw your personal attack - David Gerard 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - querulous nomination - David Gerard 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template should be kept. It's transcluded on well over 50 Harry Potter articles, and for instance the transclusion on the J. K. Rowling article seems to have been there for months. If it were useless it would probably have been removed by now. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates only used only 50 pages due to a bit being run to change the template articles transclude (with the summary "cleanup[..]"). Matthew 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've returned the pages back to their original transclusion location and returned the original template back from a redirect to its content. In turn this template is now an orphan as well. Matthew 17:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Matthew, how does reverting the pages improve Wikipedia, other than to orphan a template you're attempting to get deleted? Let me know what I'm missing. ChazBeckett 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - To maintain the spirit of neutrality as per WP:NPOV and as Tony seemingly "requested" it. Matthew 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Matthew, I'm really not sure deciding to revert and edit war on templates you've nominated for deletion and, twice now, gotten nowhere in getting a consensus to delete is very nice. Phil Sandifer 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "requested" it? I took a look at the pages involved, and considering your history witht his template I think you are quite a bit "pointy" here. Charon X/talk 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as per Phil, this could be a helpful solution to the issue of "fancruft". If it could be moved onto special-purpose wikis which are then linked from within articles, it would both keep the Wikipedia articles relatively clean, and keep the fans happy. *** Crotalus *** 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator: Why are you edit warring over the related templates to this? - David Gerard 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Wikipedia and specialized wikis have different intention, strengths and weaknesses. This template brings the editors and readers of both wiki together (actually unidirection in this case). It will facilitate the improvements of article on both wikis. As to "improving" this template, I believe there should be an optional second parameter to override the corresponding article name on HPW. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest that the nominator be made to sit down and read policy properly to avoid making such a nuisance of himself again. —Phil | Talk 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UNDO replacement i think this is a link ad and should be deleted. I truly dislike these things. I understand a lot of people want this box, that's fine, but to replace {{Hpw}} with this totally different template seems a bit over the top to me. I would like {{Hpw}} back, and if people want this box so badly, they can add it by hand to every article they care about. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless replaced by an inline link. Sisterproject boxes are reserved for Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia is not a tool to make money for Wikia's investors. —Cryptic 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very inappropriate use of template for non-Wikipeia project which doesn't even meet criteria for external links. 2005 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems that underlying issues are at hand here, and I believe the Wiki could be useful in some instances. Jmlk 1 7 21:37, 30 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:Maccabi Haifa presidents 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit into any categories, and was created for the sole purpose of praising Yochanan Vollach who seems to have his friends edit the article about him. NYC2TLV 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the other people in the template would even be notable to stay up on Wikipedia. -SpeechFreedom 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of deadlinks and non-notable people. Jmlk17 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Maccabi Haifa is the biggest sports club in Israel. NYC2TLV has ridiculus claims. Felixvvv 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Haifa is the biggest sports club, but that has nothing to do with the template. When it comes to sports templates, it doesn't hold up. -NYC2TLV 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Stop your vandalism acts against Vollach. Your claims are shameless. There is no reason to delete the temple just because you personally hate Vollach. I understand that you are angry with him that he was a Hapoel Haifa symbol so you want revenge. -This unsigned comment was made by Hapoelhaifa3 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (This comment was made by the templates creator -NYC2TLV 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, The statement above is libel and a personal attack. I believe that it was made by the article's creator. -NYC2TLV 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a template for only one notable member? That seems more than pointless. --Haemo 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I changed my mind. Ilyhg 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If the temple is to stay, I will fill notable people so that more then half will be full. Ilyhg 20:44, 5 June 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:Calvin Harres 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created by Keylyan who is intent on vandalising all pages associated with Calvin Harris. — Chappy • T • C • 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm only listing this because there doesn't seem to be a speedy delete for templates unless you were either the original author or the template has been replaced by another template, otherwise I would list it for speedy. Chappy ^T_C 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a no brainer. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much else to say, except per nomination. Jmlk 1 7 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For obvious reasons. Pax:Vobiscum 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary template, maybe speedy criteria G2. Carlosguitar 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some kind of vandalism, or vandalism-related activity. --Haemo 23:24, 2 June 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.