Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 16

< November 15	November 17 >

November 16 edit

Template:Gateway Inc 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! 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not nearly enough articles about Gateway for there to be a navbox like this. See other similar boxes for a relevant comparison. For example, Template:Apple or Template:Dell Inc. Also, the company was recently acquired by Acer and it isn't likely that new articles will be created about the company. — Paul^C/_T+ 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With two active links, a "see also" would suffice (without prejudice to recreation if someone actually writes articles on the computers/people mentioned therein). SkierRMH (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template has too few active links to be useful. Doczilla (talk) 03:46, 18 November 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:Spoiler-blank 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(Говорить!) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, since Template:Spoiler is gone, why is this still here? If nothing else, this template is used even less than the main spoiler one and hasn't been used in the mainspace at all for a long time. — -- Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and consistency with spoiler template. Doczilla (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mainspace uses, and per nom for consistency w/spoiler TfD. SkierRMH (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the deletion of Template:Spoiler. --Mark (Mschel) 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's "encyclopedic" :) Milo 09:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the previously deleted Template:Spoiler, this template is too open to abuse and it was a rare case where this template could be used where Template:Spoiler wasn't suitable. If we can't trust the editors to use Template:Spoiler properly, then there is no way we can trust them to use this one. --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for keeping this, now that Template:Spoiler is gone. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let this die. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that a template currently appears in zero articles is not a valid reason for deletion in my opinion. If it were a valid reason, I could simply remove a template from every article and say "See?" --Pixelface (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't seen a good use for this one. Kusma (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per Farix. A content disclaimer whose use is controversial and that can be customised by individual editors? I'd say "delete" regardless of what had happened to Template:Spoiler. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Miscast as "warnings" when there is no danger, spoiler notices do not meet the legal definition of a disclaimer – they are excepted because they are not real. The controversy is up to 68% synthetic, and could be resolved with the Hide'nShow compromise spoiler notice package which has quietly evolved over the last two years. Milo 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter whether we use "warning" or "notice". The fact remains that it's a tool to notify readers that they are about to encounter content which they may not wish to read. Ergo, it's a disclaimer. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Believe as you wish, but your personal definition of M-W.com disclaimer (legal) (also see Disclaimer) is private language not intentionally permitted in Wikipedia's legal disclaimers rulecrafting.
    - But... but... I've always said that. Um, yes, and you've always been wrong (as was I until I researched it). The English language is riddled with hidden propaganda of this sort. Many other people have made the same error, based on the falsely-hyperbolic, profit-driven colloquial usage of spoiler "warning" (yet disappointment is not dangerous), and chain-linking to a legally erroneous spoiler "disclaimer" (yet disappointment is not a hazardous risk). Many wrongs don't make a right at a formally correct encyclopedia — indeed, correction of many wrongs is for what a reference work exists. Milo 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right. I've been using the term "disclaimer" as the equivalent of "content warning", which it's technically not. As for the use of "warning", which you apparently dispute, consider this: a warning warns (for lack of a better term) against undesired consequences or outcomes. This can include actual danger (e.g. a sign stating "Warning: Sharks in water") or simply potential negative consequences (e.g. a traffic warning). Disappointment from reading a spoiler falls into the latter category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire idea of spoiler notices/warnings is superfluous for an encyclopedia. Every substantive article about a book, movie, play, TV show, short story, or video game contains information that the reader may not have already known. Something as simple as revealing the theme, setting or the names of major characters could be considered a 'spoiler'. I also agree that this template is too open for improper use which could lead to an steep increase in spoiler warning debates. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "entire idea of spoiler notices/warnings is superfluous for an encyclopedia" The polls don't agree with your POV. In Poll #1, the 40+% editors that want permanent spoiler notices on historical and classical works of fiction (meaning all fiction excluding quibblebait articles), are a large minority. Overlap that with 68% in Poll #5, readers who actually use spoiler notices, and you are in a 32% minority.

"Something as simple as revealing the theme, setting or the names of major characters could be considered a 'spoiler'." The 68% felt adequately served by the local consensus art jury in making decisions as to which details were significant spoilers.

"improper use which could lead to an steep increase in spoiler warning debates" It would be difficult to top the 1,850,000 byte debate which has ensued due to the mass removal of 45,000 spoiler notices, so I deem that risk not only acceptable, but of no particular (or even noticeable) consequence if it did happen. Milo 19:36, 23 November 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:Agf1 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less accurate that the standard {{uw-agf1}} (and so on), there is no need to have two. Qst 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a history merge out of the question? Hiding Talk 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mhh, I suppose not - but that too seems unnecessary as there is a more widely used template (uw-agf1). Qst 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does that negate a history merge? I mean, in essence all uw-agf1 is is a rewrite of agf1, so in essence a history merge simply makes that clearer. Of course uw-agf has more usage now, it is more widely advised that people use that than this. Hiding Talk 10:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the heavy use, I'd suggest a redirect of this to {{uw-agf1}}, as that matches the level of warnings page. The same probably applies to {{agf2}}, redirect to {{uw-agf2}} (which now redirects to agf3), and {{agf3}}, redirect to {{uw-agf3}} for consistency. -- SkierRMH (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been around much longer than uw-agf1, and there is not consensus that the older series of templates (i.e. the ones that are not the "uw"-series) should be deleted or redirected. See, for example, item #2 at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/FAQ. --Iamunknown 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since no real reason for deletion has been presented. Hiding Talk 10:28, 22 November 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:Unit cu m 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(Говорить!) 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and its redirect page {{Unit cbm}}. No pages or templates transclude this anymore. {{convert}} can handle these conversions. MJCdetroit 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having all conversions be carried out thought a single template will standardise how different aspects of the conversion are achieved and make it easer to ensure changes in implementation needed to keep up with the ever changing MOS are done in a consistent way, although unfortunately it won't reduce the work needed to make such a change. -- PatLeahy (talk) 21:18, 16 November 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:UEFA Cup 2006/07 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. SkierRMH (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are only going to have these templates for the current UEFA Cup competition, as far as I remember. Otherwise they would be an extreme clutter for clubs that have participated at many UEFA Cups. — Punkmorten 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the point of such a policy, if there is one. All Uefa cups are (equally) relevant, and these templates provide important information in an easily understandable and overviewable way. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good point Black Falcon. I, fore some reason, didn't think of that, so I'm changing my vote. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The point is to avoid template clutter, whereby a single club article has the history of several UEFA Cups posted at the bottom. This type of detailed information belongs in article on the particular UEFA Cup, not in a navigation template at the bottom of every single club article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 22 November 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:UEFA Cup 2001/02 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(Говорить!) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are only going to have these templates for the current UEFA Cup competition, as far as I remember. Otherwise they would be an extreme clutter for clubs that have participated at many UEFA Cups. This one is not even used, except for one page (perhaps subst and delete). — Punkmorten 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the point of such a policy, if there is one. All Uefa cups are (equally) relevant, and these templates provide important information in an easily understandable and overviewable way. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. D'oh! Changing my vote as per Black Falcon. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The point is to avoid template clutter, whereby a single club article has the history of several UEFA Cups posted at the bottom. This type of detailed information belongs in article on the particular UEFA Cup, not in a navigation template at the bottom of every single club article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - imagine how big certain clubs' articles would get if these were propagated. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 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:Unit cm 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(Говорить!) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pages or templates transclude this anymore. {{convert}} can handle these conversions — MJCdetroit 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reason as #Template:Unit cu m (perhaps future deletions of these templates should be bundled together). -- PatLeahy (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unused & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 18:00, 17 November 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:Unit acre 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(Говорить!) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pages or templates transclude this anymore. — MJCdetroit 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reason as #Template:Unit cu m. -- PatLeahy (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 18:01, 17 November 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:Unit cu ft 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(Говорить!) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and its redirect page {{Unit cbft}}. Replaced the one page using it with {{convert}}. Now that convert can handle volumes, this is not needed. — MJCdetroit 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reason as #Template:Unit cu m. -- PatLeahy (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 18:01, 17 November 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.

Football squad templates 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(Говорить!) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:FOOTY guidelines that only FIFA World Cup templates should be used. - Darwinek 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The European Championship is a big tournament, which deserves to have templates for the winning squads at the very least.
Delete in accord with FOOTY. SkierRMH (talk) 03:28, 26 November 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:Trinity Blood Info 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(Говорить!) 05:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template for only four (possibly soon to be three) articles that are already adequately linked to from the main article.. Collectonian 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extensively interlinked already. -- Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles do a good job of interlinking. SkierRMH (talk) 18:03, 17 November 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:Greek Ship 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. IceKarma ॐ 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an overly specific, single-nation version of the standardized {{Infobox Ship}} template that was designed by WikiProject Ships for use on ship articles of all nations. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; either {{Infobox Ship}} or {{Infobox Ship Example}} should be used. No need for something more specialized. TomTheHand 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notified the creator of the template. This should have been done as a matter of course.Argos'Dad 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: there is no reason why a nation-specific navy template cannot be maintained. Argos'Dad 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wrote hastily, not realizing that WP:Ships has discussed this and apparently reached a consensus that there should not be nation-specific templates. I am now Undecided and await comment from the author of the template. Argos'Dad 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The template was created by me in response to this discussion (BTW, the {{Infobox Hellenic Navy}} ought to be deleted wither way as deprecated). I did raise the question of using the standard {{Infobox Ship}} template, but it was apparently preferred to retain a Greece-specific template. While I would prefer to use a nation-specific template (there are plenty of these around in Wikipedia), if the consensus is indeed to use one universal template, then it's OK by me. Regards, 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: Could you say in a nutshell what the main differences are? — Sebastian 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this is a Greece-specific template, the most obvious changes are stylistic: the template includes a header with both Greek and English names, the naval ensign corresponding to the period of service (monarchy, Republic or revolutionary), and a provision is made to include the ship's emblem in the upper right corner, if it is available. Otherwise the template is pretty much the same as {{Infobox Ship}}, with some additions: there is a separate "previous service" field for previous career in a different navy, a "notable actions" field, a separate "sunk" field (the more generic "fate" is retained for other cases) and a webpage field in the bottom. You can see examples here and here. I feel I should explain the rationale behind the creation of a separate template: simply put, since there are separate pages for the career of a ship in an individual navy, we thought it appropriate to have a dedicated template. However, it is true that {{Infobox Ship}} can cover the same need. Cplakidas 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not have the parameters for "original name" and "english translation" or "english name" added to {{infobox ship}} so that it'd cover for all international ships. Colours can be specified and flags included by using the same due course, i.e. a parameter "nation" which adds the Greek flag and makes the colours, say, blue and white, if "Greece" is the country selected, whereas "Australia" would yeaild the Australian flag (or maybe the Australian navy flag etc) and use Australian colours (green and gold). It'd be a fair bit of work, and standardising it would take a while, but once complete, it'd be quite a smooth process to then add new ships (ps: I'm not voting to delete or keep just yet, but I'm leaning to delete because I see the differences as being able to easily be converted into embeded parameters as I've suggested here). --linca linca 09:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the code, you'll see that in effect, you can use this template for any specific nation. The "Greek name" parameter exists because it was created for Greek ships. One can easily change that to "native name". The flag, likewise, is not pre-selected, but has to be added manually. I was thinking of using the {{flagicon}} template, which would also enable other nations, but frankly did not have the time, or the need (again, since this was supposed to be limited to Greece). Cplakidas 10:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and suggestions pointed out by Lincalinca. If these features are important enough to warrant a slightly different template, the original template should be modified to include them AFTER discussion & consensus. JPG-GR 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is better to tweak a standard infobox like {{Infobox Ship}} to meet any special needs, than create a single use/overly specific infobox. —MJCdetroit 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... until the original template is modified to provide the functionality of this template per Lincalina and Cplakidas discussion, then Delete.Argos'Dad 00:32, 25 November 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:USRadio 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.

I have withdrawn my request as the template has now been re-purposed for a similar purpose and is currently in the process of (re)construction. (non-admin closure) JPG-GR (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been deprecated in favor of {{USRadio2}}. No article namespace transclusions remain. — JPG-GR 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose to a template for lists of radio stations by market area. While I appreciate the work that JPG-GR has been doing to update and standardize the various state-based radio station lists, there is at least some consensus that we want to retain lists based on market areas, which are generally considered more important than states in the radio industry. See also User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 3#List of radio stations in California & List of radio stations in California by market area, User talk:JPG-GR#List of radio stations in Florida, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive4#"US radio stations by state" lists, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive4#Discussion - RE: "US radio stations by state" lists. Also, it would be a shame to delete all that edit history and discussion, which should probably be histmerged into {{USRadio2}} if this template were to be deleted. DHowell (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've now repurposed the template and am using it in List of radio stations in California by market area. Please do not delete. Renaming this is an option if it is desired to rename {{USRadio2}} to {{USRadio}}. DHowell (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment if there is an alternate use intended for the template, I withdraw my request. JPG-GR (talk) 00:14, 19 November 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.