Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2 edit

Template:Testcases 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 debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7, where no one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created by accident; supposed to be a testcases subpage. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an author request, and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 01:22, 3 February 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:Functions 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a navbox without any links and is unused. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author appears to be largely inactive, and I can't see "mathematical functions" being a suitable candidate for a template list - I expect there are enough of them to overfill a category and require subcats, never mind a template. Happy‑melon 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I too would shudder to think what a comprehensive template of this nature would look like. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 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:The Birds Duology 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a navbox for a "series" with only 2 movies. — Hnsampat (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no navigational value beyond See also links. –Pomte 03:28, 4 February 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:Birth date and age 1973 - 2008 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 debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1 - patent nonsense. Happy‑melon 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no functionality whatsoever (no code) and is unused anywhere. Listing here because it doesn't quite fit any speedy criterion.. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:34, 2 February 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:Train Rollingstock 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant template as well as it's associated doc - Template:Train Rollingstock/doc. Green Giant (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per the deletion of the below Amtrack car template. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 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:Infobox amtrak car 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 debate was Speedily deleted as an uncontroversial redirect cleanup (WP:CSD#G6). Happy‑melon 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant template - we don't really need redirect templates. Green Giant (talk) 12:50, 2 February 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:Infobox train car 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant template as well as it's associated doc - Template:Infobox train car/doc. Green Giant (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to {{infobox train}}. Happy‑melon 23:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per the deletion of the above Amtrack car template. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 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:IMSLP2 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 debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the International Music Score Library Project website was forced to shut down. though this template has been awkwardly modified to identify works the 'were' included in the database, it currently serves no rational purpose. emerson7 06:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly blanked). The legal status of the project appears to be still under debate - its database has not been deleted AFAIK. If it relaunches in the near future with the same database, we'll have done a large amount of needless work clearing these links, followed by even more unnecessary work restoring them. Yes this template is currently of no utility, but it has clear potential if the site is restored (which seems entirely possible in my limited knowledge of the situation), and certainly does no harm. If the site does go down permanently, of course, then delete as genuinely useless. Happy‑melon 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will be a lot of work to re-add all templates when the site comes up again, which it eventually will. --Funper (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but make note that it should be re-evaluated after a time. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site will be back in the near future. Deleting and re-adding all the links to the scores is hence useless work.--Dr. Friendly (talk) 22:19, 3 February 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:Hobbyist 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 debate was to userfy. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive template, biased opinion of editors who should know better than trash the project. Very close to being a candidate for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#Templates and Wikipedia:Userbox migration — ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duck. Applies equally to fringe and mainstream experts, and their bigoted and deprecatory persecutors. Does not trash the project, but it's lack of functionality. Although I see your point about it being inflammatory ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:USER - doesn't even come close to some of the Myspaciation of other pages nominator has allowed Seems to be some sour grapes flying around here. Shot info (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this doesn't belong in template space and will probably never be used by more than two users. Suggest that User:Raymond arritt and User:ScienceApologist just stick its contents on their user pages without using a template. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a bilious rant. 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)
Delete: snarky and unneccessarlily mean spirited. --emerson7 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Censorship only serves to create more dissension and in this case fuel a dispute that has broken out pursuant to Homeopathy Pages. : Albion moonlight (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Does not trash the project, but rather gives a view that many people seem to take. This view, a reasoned way of saying "I am a WikiSloth", does help build the encyclopedia. –Pomte 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in userfying it, if that would resolve the issue here. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I can see the point the author is trying to make, but the wording is too inflamatory to permit in the template namespace. Happy‑melon 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy, as nom. If the userfication raises other concerns, we can address that there. But first it needs to be excised from WP's namespace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this has already been userfied at {{User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist}}. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy Not familiar with the term userfy, but if it means make into a userbox and remove the template, I agree. Users have a right to protest without disruption, but there's really no need for a template. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy simply means to move out of a project space and into the User: space. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't trash the project or violate any policies, and will only be used by a few editors who choose to use it. "I don't like it" isn't a good reason to delete. Deletionists are assuming bad faith. You should be ashamed of yourselves for your censorship. ~~It's a private template, so keep your mitts off of it.~~ -- Fyslee / talk 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC) [In light of Hunster's comment below, I have struck through some parts of my comment.] -- Fyslee / talk 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that there isn't anything "private" in Wikipedia; furthermore, it is in the Template space, where "private" material does not belong. As noted above, it has already been userfied, so no point in it staying in template space. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but userfy) to avoid contention. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:33, 8 February 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:Infobox Japanese EMU 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 debate was delete, leaving the option of creating a redirect open to editorial judgement. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Japanese EMU is no different to one from any other country. Template:Infobox EMU already deals with the subject in question. Wongm (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete into Template:Infobox EMU. Agreed - I can't see any reason that Japanese and German EMUs shouldn't use the same infobox. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox EMU}} redirects to {{Infobox Train}}, so I would think that the latter should be preferred. Slambo (Speak) 12:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprecated by the standardised {{infobox EMU}}. Happy‑melon 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as deprecated. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into Template:Infobox EMU. This is an inferior template with very few useful information fields, and the universal Template:Infobox EMU works fine for Japanese EMUs. --DAJF (talk) 08:31, 10 February 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:Infobox City of Moldova 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized and upgraded to Infobox Settlement. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant template. Also delete the redirects to this template - Template:Moldavian cities infobox, Template:Infobox City Moldovia, Template:Moldovan cities infobox, Template:Infobox City Moldova. Green Giant (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprecated to {{infobox settlement}}. Happy‑melon 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as deprecated; delete the above listed redirects. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 4 February 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:Converta 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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recreation of {{convert}}. It was created to avoid typing "|abbr=on". —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was discussed at Template_talk:Convert#Template_with_defaults_for_infoboxes_.5BWas:_Should_we_keep_this_parallel_template.3F.5D

The template is made for infoboxes and has three additional parameters. A bot gone wild just removed it from a series of infoboxes, missing two out of three parameters, really regrettable. -- User:Docu

comment It was discussed and two other editors agreed that this off-shoot was unnecessary, redundant, and an odd way to save keystokes. If you want to save keystrokes just use copy & paste. Also, the other parameter, |lk=on (i.e. wikilinking) everytime is inappropriate for an infobox. The MOSNUM suggests that you only link the first time. In fact, some editors, Lightmouse in particular, actually de-link all common units such as miles and kilometers. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that they just commented on your incomplete summary before I had time to respond. -- User:Docu

Those editors are very active on that talk page—they almost certainly seen your comments that have been there for almost two weeks. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as I can tell this template does nothing that {{Convert}} doesn't already do. There is no point in replication. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having two templates which do the same thing with different defaults makes it harder to get writers to use each correctly because the alternatives are less discoverable. If this is kept is should be renamed to have a more meaningful name and it should be documented with a reference to the alternative {{Convert}} and with advice on recommended usage. -- PatLeahy (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with MJCdetroit. Lightmouse (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unnecessary encapsulation which encourages violations of the MOS and causes needless confusion for editors. Happy‑melon 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Converta does two things.
1. It save a few keystrokes.
2. It makes WP that little bit more unfathomable for editors.

If you want to use convert in an infobox, you'd be better-off hardwiring it into the infobox itself. J ɪ m p 06:10, 4 February 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:Lame 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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not helpful to the editors of the article. It is, essentially, a slap in the face to say "Hey, the deep, serious issues you were arguing about are now considered LAME" even with the warnings that the page is supposed to be humorous. Many of the issues are serious (such as the nationality of Copernicus and Tesla, or the naming of Danzing) and editors deserve a proper template, such as {{Controversial}} and {{Calm talk}}, instead of a humorous one. A humorous one may in fact encourage people to be more childish and less serious (perhaps, I think, in an effort to see more of their exploits added to their entry in LAME), which would result in a negative effect. I do not see any possible positive benefit. {{Controversial}} does LAME's job just fine without possibly encouraging childish behavior or offending certain editors.

See also July 2005 debate. — hbdragon88 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just like to point out that the controversial topics that may be being discussed aren't what is being called lame, but the edit war resulting from it (which, in my exposure to the template, usually doesn't revolve around a controversial topic in the first place). I abstain for now. JPG-GR (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 14#Template:Lame. JPG-GR (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talk:Gdańsk(aka Danzig), Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus, and Talk:Nikola Tesla don't transclude this template, so I fail to see why they were included as a rationale to delete. --Phirazo 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for transcluding this template is that it must have been listed on WP:LAME, and Tesla, Copernicus, and Danzing are all listed edit wars and would thus qualify for translcusion. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But they aren't actually transcluded. "Qualification" doesn't matter, since it isn't like someone is trying to link all the pages listed on WP:LAME. --Phirazo 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has far more potential to offend and raise tensions than to bring levity to a frivolous edit war. It seems to have been created in good faith, but I think letting it stay would be a mistake. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hyperbole or at least rename it to something like "Template:Frivolous edit war(s)" or even better "Template:Edit war(s). Green Giant (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete American slang is not good global English. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unlikely to accomplish stated goal. --emerson7 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I see the usefulness of WP:LAME to encourage us to learn from earlier mistakes, this template is not an appropriate way of advertising it. Happy‑melon 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this template may keep edit wars from flaring up again, and give editors a bit of well needed perspective. --Phirazo 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as relatively unuseful. Agreed that WP:LAME is useful, but there are better templates that can be used in place of this one. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the comment by JPG-GR and the keep vote by Phirazo. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template doesn't help build an encyclopedia, and may actually detract from it by insulting some contributors. The point about dialect made by Colonel Warden is also a good one. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we trying to graduate into a gang of never-smiling butchers, who grimly put sad tags on everything they disapprove? Or is it still a good idea to laugh at something as silly as a lame edit war? If you feel uncomfortable about the fact that it doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, then think that this particular encyclopedia is also a community project. Communities don't function well without a little humor, especially in dealing with stupidity. Try laughing at silliness instead of applying a lot of well-meaning seriousness that helps blow up the egos of people. We all can turn silly at sometime, and a little smile would much better than a serious reproach. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sound like arguments for keeping the WP:LAME page. The dispute here is whether we should tag every article that has been listed on LAME on its talk page. While I particularly like the humor of the LAME page itself, I do not believe it is wise to advertise them on talk pages. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Seems like the template is a joke. No value at all--NAHID 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (particularly Aditya's comment) --Iamunknown 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got here from Talk:Liancourt Rocks, where the debates have gone to mediation, arbitration and back. I think all parties concerned had fairly serious concerns (no comment on the merit of these concerns) and I would probably find it offensive to here my issues characterised as lame. I doubt it would help out during an edit war. {{controversial}} seems to do the trick alright - delete. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a a dispute doesn't count as "edit war" don't tag it as such, if an edit war is not "lame" don't tag it as such. What is the point of worry here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:40, 10 February 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.