Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22 edit

Template:NHL yearly infobox 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 speedy deleted by User:Maxim, citing "housekeeping". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NHLTeamSeason template is used for team seasons. – Nurmsook! (talk) 20:49, 22 March 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:McCainInfobox 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Should be subst'ed and deleted.. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template because I could not find any other way to get the edit boxes from bunching up when it was three separate templates. If anyone with more wiki skills than I can get it to work some other way, I would fully endorse the deletion. Coemgenus 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try WP:SUBST, I think ;) The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but subst'ing (probably not proper grammar, my apologies) infoboxes leaves a messy code on the page. おべんとうむすび (Contributions) 08:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now at least. There has been much talk about this infobox and this is likely to go on for some time. Having a separate page for it will allow the infobox to be discussed and protected without interfering with the main John McCain page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting this template should have no effect on how it looks in the article – templates aren't special visual elements, after all. Given that, I would support substing and deleting it. In addition, there's no reason I can think of why having an infobox on a separate page would ease discussion. Editing the contents of the infobox on John McCain shouldn't "interfere" with the article – editing is what a wiki is for :) Gracenotes^T § 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I subst'ed it. It looks fine. Do with this what you will, I suppose. Coemgenus 14:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single-use template that has already been substed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single-use template. There are a number of politically-related templates that should be used instead (for consistency). It's not really appropriate for one person to have a separate infobox. PeterSymonds | talk 12:22, 23 March 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:JC Bowl Table 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 Nabla (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Orphaned template that makes no sense outside the deleted article's context. PeterSymonds | talk 11:32, 23 March 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:2007 Paul Potiki Shield 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned, except for a redirect to it and a deletion request for that redirect. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template makes no sense outside the deleted article's context. PeterSymonds | talk 11:33, 23 March 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:Gems & Crystals 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is incomplete, unhelpful and effectively superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the above:

The template is divided into two sections. The first of these sections "Gems" is superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials, which is more extensive and better constructed. Furthermore, the division between this and other section is extremely bizarre, with diamond, sapphire and amethyst all placed outside.

The second section "Crystals" is incomplete and inaccurate. For example, it lists chalcedony, which is cryptocrystalline, and thus would never exhibit visible crystals (except as inclusions). The few minerals listed are completely arbitrary. For example, rhodochrosite is listed, whilst many vastly more common minerals are omitted. Furthermore, if this section was to be "completed", it would be so large as to be essentially useless. (To gain a rough idea of the problem, consider this list of minerals, whilst bearing in mind that the majority of the substances listed are capable of forming crystals).

For the above reasons, I believe that this section is incorrigible, and that any effort to improve it would be better invested in improving Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath (talk)

I have now added all the gemstones listed in Template:Gems & Crystals to Template:Jewellery Materials (with the exception or pyrite and rhodocrosite, which don't really belong anywhere, except in specific mineralogical categories). Hyperdeath (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and expand~~Delete (see below). ~~Gems and crystals are not exclusive to jewellery materials, and I think that we should look at this from a geological viewpoint as well~~. PeterSymonds | talk 11:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I completely agree that the minerals need to be considered from a geological standpoint. However, the template is unfit for this purpose. First of all, from a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as a "gemstone"; the term only becomes meaningful if a particular mineral is employed as a decoration. Secondly, the link between gemstones and crystals is unclear, and becomes more so if considered from a geological viewpoint. For example, Autunite can form beautiful crystals, but no-one would consider it to be anything like a gemstone.
  In my opinion, any effort placed into salvaging this template would be better employed in improving the interconnections between existing geological articles. For example, the article on rhodochrosite would be far better served by turning Category:Carbonate_minerals and Category:Manganese_minerals into well structured templates.
  Hyperdeath (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ya learn something new every day, I didn't know that gemstone was unscientific. Based on your (very well structured) argument, I can now see that the template has faults. Creating a new and better template would be better, as based on your argument, it seems this one doesn't serve the purpose.PS. When can ya start? :) PeterSymonds | talk 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. It seems however, that I have a lot of work to do :) As a brief start, I have created a manganese minerals template which has been added to the rhodochrosite article. Is there a way to automatically add this template to every article listed? (I have searched through the editing guides, and have not been able to find anything. Then again, I imagine that such a tool would be capable of causing great damage if used carelessly or maliciously, and so may be restricted.) I believe that creating similar templates for every mineral category would be extremely useful. However is a huge task, and beyond one just one user. Therefore, I intend to propose a task force. Hyperdeath (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, good work so far. I don't think there's an automatic method of adding templates. You can substitute it (see WP:SUBST) to make it a bit easier, and help the servers! I think it's going to be a copy-and-paste job to get them on all the articles. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to drop me a line. PeterSymonds | talk 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have now completely interlinked the manganese template. I have decided to do it dynamically rather than by substitution, as the template will be subject to extension and restructuring. I have sent a message to your talk page (where this thread of the discussion should probably be continued). Thank you for your feedback. Hyperdeath (talk) 22:48, 23 March 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.