Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26 edit

Template:MLB Player 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. Garion96 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB Player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant to Template:Infobox MLB player. It is not being used by any articles. — NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; I see no use for this since there are no transclusions and we already have one like this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Orphan, copy of another template, ... -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. --Friejose (talk) 23:11, 30 July 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:MLB team 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. Garion96 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant to Template:MLB infobox. It is not being used by any articles. — NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Orphan, copy of another template, ... -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. --Friejose (talk) 23:12, 30 July 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:MLBpitcher 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. Garion96 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is redundant to Template:Infobox MLB player. It is not being used by any articles. — NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Orphan, copy of another template, ... -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although if someone were to create a template for pitchers that was substantively different than the one for players (i.e. by including pitching specific stats or information), I may be supportive of such a template. That's not the situation here, however. --Friejose (talk) 23:13, 30 July 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:History of photography-related articles 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. However, a move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography wouldn't go amiss. Happy‑melon 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of photography-related articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Complete misuse of template space. I wasn't sure what to do with this. Userfy? Delete? Redirect somewhere? Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd...it appears to be an AfD transclusion. That's what archives are for, so I suppose just delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you might have done is bothered to contact the person who created it: me. Just by chance I happened to notice the deletion prompt attached to it in minuscule lettering. So it's misnamed? Well, sorry, how would you like it named? I'll rename it. Or you can rename it, if you change the links accordingly. (Incidentally, it was created following the precedent of Template:Newest Japan-related articles, which like this has deletion proposals transcluded within it, and thus seems to me to be misnamed, as not all of the AfDs and prods within it are new, let alone "newest".) -- Hoary (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC) .... PS I'm going to bed. If you people could refrain from deleting the damn thing for a few hours, it would be much appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've hidden the transclusion. Why get rid of this template? It looks helpful to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is helpful - without this template it would be much harder to know of and keep track of new photography articles. This allows those of us who are interested in the subject and who regularly work on photography articles to quickly deal with such things as vanity articles, articles on non-notable subjects, articles that duplicate subject matter, etc. - problems that seem to have been of increasing significance recently. I can't see how this is a misuse of the template namespace. Pinkville (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the transcluded AfD stuff muddled things. Since that's gone now, I see no reason to get rid of this template. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it doesn't transclude deletions and is purely a list of new articles, it would better be retitled "Template:New History of photography-related articles". (Or, if we take the style guides seriously, "Template:New History of photography–related articles" [note the dash instead of the hyphen], but this seems like a considerable complication for a very small advantage.) I'm not going to rename it immediately because to do so would bring an additional complication to this puzzling TfD debate. So, aside from the name (which can later be fixed), where's the beef? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography/Related articles, or keep. Actually there are lots of 'work' templates like this one around and they are useful tools for editors/wikiprojects, so deleting would hurt more than help. Still I think these better stand as a subpage of the related WikiProject, making them easier to find (e.g. using "Special:PrefixIndex"), and still easy to transclude - Nabla (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Templates are very cheap. Why all the kerfuffle over a tool some editors find helpful? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 29 July 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:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generally template is erroneous classification and form a non NPOV. The template includes air forces belonging to countries of the former USSR. These air forces where, in themselves, never part of the USSR military, nor under their control, simply not existing in Soviet times. The template gives the impression they were. Some users have cited equipment origin in defense of template, but these are in a minority, and regardless, for example, purchasing equipment from the USA does not make that air forces part of the USA's. So purchasing Russian equipment does not make... you get the idea... illogical argument. No proper reason has been given on the template's talk page. — Artlondon (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These air forces where, in themselves, never part of the USSR military, nor under their control" - Yes they were, as separate air armies with a different banner on the HQ building.

"Some users have cited equipment origin in defense of template, but these are in a minority" - Who, the users or the equipment?

"[...] purchasing equipment from the USA does not make that air forces part of the USA's." - Which air force purchased American equipment?

Keep, the template has two purposes. First, as I said on the talk page, "it is to bring similar air forces into one group. In other words, the only difference between a Belarusian air base and a Kazah one is the sign on the HQ building," while both in its equipment and its structures, the air forces are identical. Secondly, most (10) countries of the former USSR form the CIS, which has a joint air defence system. Even though only the Russian and Belarusian systems are truly joint the rest of the countries still engage in regular exercises while sharing radar surveillance and national situation reports. Therefore, the air forces of the template are not only identical, they are integrated. Of course my rationale falls short of the Baltic air forces, which as I said earlier, should be removed. --Bogdan ^що? 13:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the name, to prevent confusion, and make it's purpose actually apparent. Does this bilateral agreement have a name? Artlondon (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not really sure. I think it is just part of a CIS Collective Security agreement, just Google CIS air defense if you want to read more about it. As for the renaming, I think the current title is fine, but either way it shouldn't be discussed here. --Bogdan ^що? 11:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as its I hold by the above reasons. Artlondon (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't see it as a NPOV problem, it's not at issue whether these countries were formerly part of the USSR, and this template could prove helpful for navigation. --Friejose (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the countries where yes, but the Air Forces where not. Artlondon (talk) 11:40, 31 July 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:Carmen Rasmusen 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. Uncontested. The items in this template are not noteworthy, and therefore a template is redundant. As TenPoundHammer says, the information is already linked from the article, and links to the template are few. Three transclusions, one of which is about to expire at WP:PROD. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carmen Rasmusen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly narrow template. Only two albums (one of which I've just prodded), neither single is notable, everything else is already linked from Carmen's main page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 06:25, 26 July 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:Turkishrock 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 Happy‑melon 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Turkish Pop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Macedonian female musicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a template, this is what categories are made for. See also precedent at related TFD here which closed as delete. Garion96 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --joseph ^msg 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC
Agreed. Users should spend more time accurately categorizing articles. I did some cleaning tonight myself. Besides, there are far too many Turkish musicians. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to cats per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 29 July 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.