Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9 edit

Template:Future road 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Once again.. what, exactly, is the purpose of this template?

"This article contains information about a planned or expected future road." The lead of any article that contains this template will say the exact same thing, only in a more specific and detailed way. At least it should. So that seems rather redundant to me.
"It may contain information of a speculative nature" Really? Isn't that true for every article we have? And isn't that covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer already? Will the article cease to contain any kind of speculative information when the road is built? And isn't the reader able to find out by himself what kind of information is speculative, anyhow?
"(...) and the content may change as the road's construction or completion approaches and more information becomes available." Or, in other words, "The content may change as more information becomes available." Again, that's true for every article we have. And that statement makes as much sense as warning our readers that "This article will change if it is edited" or "This article may contain vandalism".

So, in the end, the template tells our readers something they already know, or will find out if they read the articles that use the template. So what is the purpose of this template, and why do we need it? How does it help our readers? Note that this nomination is not about Category:Future roads, which is a perfectly fine category, IMHO, and should stay in the articles that currently use the template, should the template be deleted. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same arguments as below. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The future dimension adds a speculative aspect to the article that is over and above what is normally encountered, and a future template alerts readers to this. Johnfos (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warning the reader of speculation and possibly outdated information is within policy, as demonstrated by other templates, such as Template:Future film and Template:Future election. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above - I have even used these types templates before and as long as they're being used in accordance with WP:Crystal as I did with those articles I used it in then I have no problem with the template. However I feel that these templates should make a mention of the polices at WP:Crystal so it would have well cited information on the Future Project, and no uncited speculation. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bahamut0013 and arguments below. Proposed or planned roads may follow any path, and saying it "may follow Route 32" could mean the route itself, or within miles of it, and the reader should know that it could change. --MPD^{T / C} 06:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - same arguments as for Template:Future power plant - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to note that the 'future' aspect may refer to a section of the article, such as the transport section of a jurisdiction's article. It's also a useful template for editors, letting them know quickly that content may need to be updated.Synchronism (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Necessary. C L — 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as below. Terraxos (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. My comment is not directly about these three templates listed for deletion, but about future and current templates in general. Everything said here applies probably also to other future and current templates. Therefore, probably we need a general guidelines or policy with clear rules, in which case we can accept these templates and in which case not. As there are about half hundred such templates, I agree that we don't need all of them. If we are going to delete these three templates listed here, I don't understand why we should remain templates like Template:Current bill, Template:Future airline, Template:Future amusement ride, Template:Future chip, Template:Proposed engine design, Template:Sports venue under re-development in the United States, or most recently created Template:Future Paperless Tickets. These just examples. But we need more general agreed policy to deal with this. There was block deletion of future templates half a year ago, when one editor removed template tag from articles and listed templates after that for deletion as templates not in use. I think we should avoid that kind of practice and to find consensus about general policy. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roads which are being planned often have a general corridor, often several miles wide, which the road is planned to be built within. The exact route is usually unknown at this stage. Then, the road agency will present an array of possible exact locations for the road to be built. Even when a preferred alternate is selected, there may still need to be amendments to the route to placate nearby homeowners. Even during construction last-minute alterations and schedule changes may need to be made due to the discovery of previously unknown environmental conditions such as presence of endangered wildlife (which held up construction of the Creek Turnpike), geographic features inhospitable to building (the sudden discovery of acid rock delayed I-99 construction for a couple of years), or even fossils or artifacts which cause building to cease so that archaeologists can investigate and collect the items (can't think of an example offhand, but I know it's happened several times). And of course during construction, public opposition may continue to mount to the point where the entire project is cancelled before it is complete (I-40 in Memphis, Tenn.) That said, what the road agency intends to build at the start of the project may end up very different from what actually gets built. That is why we have this template—readers need to be made aware of the nature of planned road projects, and that the information they're reading today may not accurately reflect the final product that they can drive on tomorrow. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:33, 17 December 2008 (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:Future infrastructure 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future infrastructure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty much the same reasoning as below: What, exactly, is the purpose of this template?

"This article or section contains information about planned or expected future infrastructure." The lead of any article that contains this template will say the exact same thing, only in a more specific and detailed way. At least it should. So that seems rather redundant to me.
"It may contain speculative information" Really? Isn't that true for every article we have? And isn't that covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer already? Will the article cease to contain any kind of speculative information when the infrastructure is built? And isn't the reader able to find out by himself what kind of information is speculative, anyhow?
"(...) and [information] may change upon or during construction." Again, that's true for every article we have. And that statement makes as much sense as warning our readers that "This article will change if it is edited" or "This article may contain vandalism".

So, in the end, the template tells our readers something they already know, or will find out if they read the articles that use the template. So what is the purpose of this template, and why do we need it? How does it help our readers? Note that this nomination is not about Category:Future infrastructure, which is a perfectly fine category, IMHO, and should stay in the articles that currently use the template, should the template be deleted. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same arguments as below. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The future dimension adds a speculative aspect to the article that is over and above what is normally encountered, and a future template alerts readers to this. Johnfos (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warning the reader of speculation and possibly outdated information is within policy, as demonstrated by other templates, such as Template:Future film and Template:Future election. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above - I have even used these types templates before and as long as they're being used in accordance with WP:Crystal as I did with those articles I used it in then I have no problem with the template. However I feel that these templates should make a mention of the polices at WP:Crystal so it would have well cited information on the Future Project, and no uncited speculation. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence of any such article makes it clear that it is planned or incomplete.--Pmsyyz (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The template can also be used for sections and the subject alone needn't be in the future..Synchronism (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same arguments as for Template:Future power plant - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template, like the similar ones being considered, is useful in many ways. I have used this template when writing about future drinking water delivery projects because there is no other specific template and it's a good way to let other editors know that at least part of the article needs to be updated. If an editor is unsure of what type of future infrastructure is involved they can use this template and another user can then quickly recategorize it on sight, as a future road or public transportation development for example. Synchronism (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as above vote. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as below. Terraxos (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (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:Future power plant 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future power plant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What, exactly, is the purpose of this (and similar) template(s)? Let's see:

"This article or section contains information about a proposed, planned or under construction power plant." The lead of any article that contains this template will say the exact same thing, only in a more specific and detailed way. At least it should. So that seems rather redundant to me.
"It may contain information of a speculative nature" Really? Isn't that true for every article we have? And isn't that covered by Wikipedia:General disclaimer already? Will the article cease to contain any kind of speculative information when the power plant is built?
"(...) and the content may change as the construction and/or completion of the power plant approaches, and more information becomes available." Or, to shorten that a bit: "The content may change as more information becomes available." Again, that's true for every article we have. And that statement makes as much sense as warning our readers that "This article will change if it is edited" or "This article may contain vandalism".

So, in the end, the template tells our readers something they already know, or will find out if they read the articles that use the template. So what is the purpose of this template, and why do we need it? How does it help our readers? Note that this nomination is not about Category:Future power stations, which is a perfectly fine category, IMHO, and should stay in the articles that currently use the template, should the template be deleted. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actively used template. Of cource, you could find all this out by reading the article, however, this template gives quick visual sign about the current status of the power station (project, in lot of cases).Beagel (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And why, exactly, do we need a quick visual sign for this? I honestly don't understand why we need this. --Conti|✉ 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The future dimension adds a speculative aspect to the article that is over and above what is normally encountered, and a future template alerts readers to this. Johnfos (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the above arguments makes sense to me. There should be no speculation in any article: facts should always be attributed to reliable sources. The fact that the subject only exists in the future doesn't exempt the article from wp:nor. If an article is full of unsourced speculation the offending material should be excised, or else a more specific reference tag should be placed on the page. And Beagel's comment is instructive: "you could find all this out by reading the article". Indeed. Delete (this and the road and infrastructure ones too). Flowerparty^☀ 10:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warning the reader of speculation and possibly outdated information is within policy, as demonstrated by other templates, such as Template:Future film and Template:Future election. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't policies. They're other stuff that exists. Flowerparty^☀ 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above - I have even used these types templates before and as long as they're being used in accordance with WP:Crystal as I did with those articles I used it in then I have no problem with the template. However I feel that these templates should make a mention of the polices at WP:Crystal so it would have well cited information on the Future Project, and no uncited speculation. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove This template is ugly. Photographs and diagrams are useful. They convey information which cannot be expressed verbally. The hard-hat and lightning bolt icons add no extra information to the article. They are a visual distraction from the useful content. They imply some additional significance to the accompanying text which does not exist. I agree fully with Conti's points above. The text is redundant. If content in a section requires high-visibility disclaimers, it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. Regarding the points above supporting retention of the template: just because something is being done in Wikipedia already, does not mean it is desirable. Wikipedia is full of visual junk. Regarding Template:Future film: this should also be removed, for the reasons given here. By way of mitigation, Template:Future film is less ugly because it has one less garish icon, is smaller, and contains less useless text. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Telling that it is under construction, and info may change. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I don't think these speculative disclaimer templates are generally helpful, such information should be in the article lead instead. Terraxos (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (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.

Jaipur election 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LS19yy-Jaipur: Template:LS1952-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1952 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1957-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1957 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1962-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1962 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1967-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1967 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1971-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1971 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1977-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1977 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1980-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1980 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1984-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1984 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1989-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1989 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1991-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1991 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1996-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1996 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1998-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1998 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD; Template:LS1999-Jaipur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:LS1999 templates(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD

Not a template. Has trivial content about election results of particular year in Constituency of Jaipur. Used only in 1 page. The data has been substituted into the page Jaipur (Lok Sabha constituency). Rest of the what links here are for bots that found red links or matched some project criteria for tagging. Hence delete template and category. Can be speedy too. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having been substituted, these templates don't appear to be in use anywhere, and it's hard to see how they ever could be. Inappropriate use of template space. Terraxos (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (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:Georgian Government Official 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete JPG-GR (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian Government Official (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete template. Superseded by Template:Infobox Officeholder. Óðinn (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete After Reformating This Templates Usage On Gia Kavtaradze~~ Gia Kavtaradze appears to be the only page using this template and can be updated to use the Template:Infobox Officeholder. I did double check to see if this was a copy and paste move and it appears that is was not so no need to do a history merge. Otherwise this template is obsolete per noms rationale. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I fixed the above mentioned page so there is no longer any pages using this template and is ready for deletion per its redundancy and it being obsolete to Template:Infobox Officeholder Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned and redundant. Terraxos (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2008 (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:RS500 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RS500 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There seems to be a consensus on Template talk:RS500 that Template:RS500 can be gotten rid of. After I submitted a request at bot requests, User:Legoktm used a bot to substitute the actual text for the template in about 500 articles in which it was used (I manually finished the few that could not be substituted with the bot). I see no reason for this template to be kept--not only do no mainspace articles use it (there are a couple of links to it in the Wikipedia and User namespaces, and it claims to be transcluded in a couple of minor Portal pages, though I don't understand it...see [1]), I think we should actively discourage its use because it adds code clutter and violates the intent of templates in general. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 10:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Does not apply to enough articles, and...well...i'm not sure. just delete it. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Encyclopedia77

Comment Wouldn't exactly use a template in the text of an article. Would it print? --Encyclopedia77 Talk 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates should not contain specific or granular information. Template namespace guidelines are clear that such information must be placed in the article(s). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate use of a template. Terraxos (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (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.