Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2 edit

Template:MIG 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 WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't really popular and has been found to be useless. Added by WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) SUN SEP 02 2007 10:31 PM EDT

That was really quick!!! Who deleted it??? WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) SUN SEP 02 2007 11:19 PM EDT

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:Syracuse Orange 2002-03 NCAA champions 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. — Malcolm (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep I am a proponent of Championship templates (I created Category:Sports champion navigational boxes). However, collegiate championship templates may be inappropriate because generally the majority or a large number of team members fail WP:N. I am not sure if this passes, but I want a ruling via discussion before I create the 1989 Michigan Wolverines. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had hoped that the category would eventually include Super Bowl, Stanley Cup and FIFA World Cup champion templates in addition to the three currently there. I am not sure which others might be appropriate, but am unsure about the collegiate level.

Keep: I would say that the Division I Men's Basketball Championship passes WP:N because it receives "Significant coverage" from "Reliable" sources "Independent of the subject" such as ESPN[1], USAtoday[2], CNNSI[3] and CBSSportsline[4]. Chengwes 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic meets WP:N, and a team article can be created but I don't think a template will work. I'm not a fan of all those indiviual season templates. Sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure what you mean by template will not work. This is not a random team's season template. This is a national champion's template. Given no major objections I switch to support and await a verdict.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the team is notable, just link the players to the team page, no need for a template Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a possible compromise may be only listing prominent members of a team and not the walk-ons, etc. - Masonpatriot

- Comment — Neutral on the keep or delete issue. However, if kept, I believe that only team members who meet notabliity criteria should be linked. Other team members should only be named. (forgot to sign!) — Dale Arnett 05:37, 12 September 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 film producer 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 unused test page. Daniel Case 03:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, doesnt seem to work anyway- may be redundant — Childzy ¤ Talk 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a test page. Anyway delete per unused. Carlosguitar 23:04, 2 September 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.

UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Groups 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. — Malcolm (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates will be relevant for three months at the most, they don't provide a useful reference tool and they will not be given a moment's thought after being removed from each team's page. I recommend that these templates be deleted. — PeeJay 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let them stay until the group stage is over, and remove them after... not now? Or maybe change the Template:Champions League 2007-08 maybe to sort in groups? If that is done, ill agree with the deletion, otherwise lets keep them. Chandler talk 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Can you give me one good reason why they should stay? - PeeJay 19:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They show which group the team is right now and that's informative. But ofc, if you dont want these, maybe put it in the other template? Chandler talk 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sorting the main template seems the only feasible option, but only if it can be done in a concise way. If you can fit two groups on each line of the main template, that might work. - PeeJay 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think a something like this, User:Xhandler/UCL rip-off from the World Cup 2006 template. Chandler talk 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me. - PeeJay 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly sort the main Champions League template into groups, although that may not be necessary. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the main CL template is bad enough without this additional unnecessary repetition and clutter. Qwghlm 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I think we have not do something like that at FIFA World Cup, right? So why we would have to do this thing? Raymond Giggs 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, {{Champions League 2007-08}} is sufficient. Conscious 09:16, 8 September 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:Current-year 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 Circeus 04:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a tag to tell users that they are reading an article about the current year? Don't be fooled by the "what links here" page, which makes it look like it is transcluded onto several thousand pages, because it is only actually displayed on two pages, 2007, and 5767 (Hebrew year) (If this discussion continues past 13 September then the latter will change to 5758). Because it is transcluded via {{Year nav}} and {{Description of a Hebrew year}}, all pages that these are transcluded on appear in the list, but the template is only displayed on the two that I listed. This template should be deleted, as it is useless. Failing that, it should be substituted onto the two templates that I mentioned. — GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Template:Year nav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is protected, so if the consensus here is to delete, or to merge, please can you modify this template as required. - GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template serves no purpose. The first line explains it is a current year: "Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year", which is surely sufficient. Dave101→talk 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It seems to me to be a specific version of {{current}} which we use to mark articles about current events so that readers are aware that the article content may change rapidly as new information becomes available. Since a year isn't an "event" per se, this template says the same thing about the year article. I suppose if we needed to, we could add a parameter into the wider template for use on the current year articles... Slambo (Speak) 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need a template to state the obvious. Serves no meaningful purpose. PC78 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to what Dave101 and PC78 stated, the template is also used in only one article. Wild Fan 48 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~{{current}}~~ {{Current only}}. --Philip Stevens 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{current}} as I feel a current tag is needed at the top of the current year (be it Gregorian or Hebrew) but I don't think it needs a tag of its own. Hera1187 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace per Hera. Schoolboy123 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yao Ziyuan 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not Redirect. I monitor use of {{current}} and in general I am in favor of eliminating most of the uses of templates that hint that the article will change. Someone redirected this template to {{current}}, which caused 2,000+ articles to show up there (all "year" articles use some template that made this possible). NO (not a desirable result).
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and all articles are generally out of date. Having this template for the current year is stupidly redundant.
Replying to the "weak keep" of Slambo and to the "redirect" of Philip Stevens and the "Replace with {{current}}" of Hera1187 and Schoolboy123:
The purpose of {{current}} is not to inform readers--it is to inform EDITORS that there are rapid changes...and the tag should be on only a few articles at any one time, that are subject to editing by many on the same day. -- Yellowdesk 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there has been a current tag on the page for the current year since 2005 at least (see here). I can see an issue with all the year pages being linked to the current tag, but some clever coding can fix that. I'll put an edit request on {{Year nav}}. Also, I did raise the question of whether there should be a current tag on the current year, but I didn't get a meaningful responce. --Philip Stevens 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that response was meaningful, and my response here is the same--that it is redundant. -- Yellowdesk 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here's an idea for a compromise, why not replace it with {{current only}}? --Philip Stevens 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to really see the need to point this out. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the current year IS a current event, as are many of the topics mentioned in the article. As a result of that, the page may change rapidly as events progress. This, in my opinion, validates the need for some sort of current tag. I think said tag should be {{Current only}} as it would fix the problem described by Yellowdesk. --Philip Stevens 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my reaction is related to the management of {{current}}, which has been previously un-managed.
Although it is popular (though in my view not useful) to use various templates that are related to {{current}} to highlight recent news, if all articles that had recent news were highlighted in this fashion, essentially 5% to 10% of wikipedia's articles would have the template, with a not-so-informative graphic at the top, and an un-manageable removal process for the template from hundreds of thousands of articles, lists, and the like, all to little positive informative result. As defined on {{current}} a current event is one where many many editors are attempting to edit an article at the same time. (And in my view, all other so-called current events are merely news.)
Does the tag "current" (or in this present case, "current-year") actually tell the reader something that cannot be ascertained from the article or article title by reading it? (And worse, for out-of-date tagged articles, what exactly was supposedly current about the article at some point?) So, I argue that it is manifestly redundant to tell the reader that an article about the current year is current and subject to change. There exists a process, with ongoing attention and review for articles that deserve attention as significant events, and Wikipedia:How the Current events page works is the place to understand how to bring wider attention to such articles.
{{Current only}} is a recent creation, and it is unknown how long it will survive. I view that it has several problems similar to {{current}}, primarily that articles that are no longer current will have the tag, or worse, some other template will incorporate the template, making untangling the source of the generated categories and links non-obvious, just as the redirect of {{current-year}} had (and could again have) un-anticipated side effects. Another negative is that it is another pf the proliferating relatives of {{current}}, and all of these templates and template redirects are likely to receive a fair bit of scrutiny in the future. -- Yellowdesk 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that {{Current only}} would only appear on the current year, though it would be linked to all the other year pages. I think the current year fits in perfectly with the modus operandi of {{Current only}} as stated on the template page: A template "designed for articles about current events in a given area or subject, which will always be current". --Philip Stevens 11:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. But if actually used, the template programming that would cause 2,000 "year" articles to show up on the "links here" item has to be fixed. My critique is in part of the {{current only}} template itself, and in part the redundancy of its actual use. These templates eventually are inappropriately used, which requires later management. Which leads back to--why is it desirable to have this template on the current year? What is non-obvious about the currency and changeableness of that article/list? -- Yellowdesk 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "what links here" problem was the reason for the current-year template being created. I'm sure there's a way to fix the code to solve this link problem, but for now though, I think the tag should be redirected to {{current only}}. --Philip Stevens 08:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea: it makes {{current only}} impossible to manage. Template fix is first needed.
Continuing on the kernal to the whole discussion: what is non-obvious about the currency and changeableness of this year's article/list?
-- Yellowdesk 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this template is here to state nothing more than the obvious is the main reason why I believe that it should be deleted and not replaced. The articles themselves explain that it is the current year. I think the people voting "keep" or "replace" would struggle to find one user, who actually needs the guidance of this template to tell him/her what the current year is. Do we need to put {{current}} on Christmas, on 25 December? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:19, 11 September 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:MOTGCharacter 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 08:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a character infobox for a single series, and is thus redundant to the standard Template:Infobox character. It is currently transcluded in only one article. Replace transclusion (or subst) and delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete. Shalom ^Hello 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sole transclusion has been replaced. All that's left is to delete the template. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 8 September 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 nursing journal 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 08:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox Journal}}. Its only used was BMC Nursing which has been updated to use the normal template.. John Vandenberg 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You got ahead of me. I was going to put this for deletion myself. Having more than one infobox for journals is confusing and this one adds nothing. --Bduke 07:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Carcharoth 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per John Vandenberg. Carlosguitar 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obsolete template, that really served no purpose in the first place. Sebi _[talk] 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NRV. Dfrg.msc 10:57, 3 September 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:Hyundai Group 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 merge and redirect to main template. Singu larity 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Hyundai}}. Deiz talk 05:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replaceable by {{Hyundai}}. Carlosguitar 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also {{Hyundai Kia Motors}}, {{Hyundai Kia Parts}} and {{Hyundai Department Store Group}}. I've merged everything into a new version of {{Hyundai}}, so we can now delete all. PC78 00:52, 3 September 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.