Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 April 30)
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30 edit

Template:Southern California 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 --Alexf(talk) 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southern California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only the namespace is potentially useful. Invented as an ill-conceived substitute for Template:Greater Los Angeles Area. Please see prior discussion here: Talk:Greater_Los_Angeles_Area#Inland_Empire_Cities_moved_from_the_LA_template. Ameriquedialectics 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. STRONG KEEP at least until the discusion is done and over with. Please visit :Talk:Greater_Los_Angeles_Area#Inland_Empire_Cities_moved_from_the_LA_template itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename, SoCal is not the same as Southland. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a trimmed GLAA template would be more useful. - SimonP (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IF GLAA becomes LA/OC Its too long I agree, just like the Greater LA template too many cities! The GLAA template should be LAA template because it will be more well organized and smaller. But I think I would be able to make the SoCal Template alot smaller if you guys can give me some time to rearrange it? itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too large to be of practical navigational use. Robofish (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculously long. Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As in the parallel discussion about deleting Template:Greater Los Angeles Area, it seems to me that having a template at a big area level is useful. It is not the same area as Greater LA, i think. A big area template should list only the bigger cities in the big area, and smaller towns and hamlets are to be listed on more detailed smaller area templates. Arguing against a big area template is like arguing against big area maps. Just because a broad map or template of the Southland doesn't show every detail, it is still useful (and in fact it is useful because it does not show every detail). doncram (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2009 (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:Mitsubishi-Jartazi 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. Wizardman 15:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mitsubishi-Jartazi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a roster template for a defunct cycling team. There are no transclusions in the mainspace, and on a common sense level, a defunct cycling team doesn't need a roster template. Nosleep break my slumber 22:53, 30 April 2009 (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:Directory 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 Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is userspace-specific only at the moment. I'm just requesting discussion here on whether it could be useful or not, rather than asking specifically for deletion. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Creator is inactive since the end of December 2007. --Izno (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (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:APL 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 Withdrawn. Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags will be a better place to discuss this. Radiant chains (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:APL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Image copyright template, intended for screenshots of software released under the Adaptive Public License. However, the APL is not a useable license by itself: it's more a license template that is meant to be customized by individual works. Template:APL links to APL 1.0, but the page clearly states:

IMPORTANT NOTE: This License is "adaptive", and the generic version or another version of an Adaptive Public License should not be relied upon to determine your rights and obligations under this License. You must read the specific Adaptive Public License that you receive with the Licensed Work, as certain terms are defined at the outset by the Initial Contributor.

Thus, we're not following the terms of the license by linking to only the generic version. Indeed, the APL even allows customization to add things like "non-commercial" clauses. Radiant chains (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2009 (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:911ct supporters 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, and replace by {{911ct}}. There is no valid reason to keep what is, and was from the start, a duplicate of 911ct. Undue weight, BLP, and any other issue is best taken care of by editing (or deleting) *one* template rather than forking. - Nabla (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911ct supporters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a list of proponents of a fringe theory clearly intended to promote the theory. I also have BLP concerns here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE concerns, including WP:UNDUE. If names are relevant to the article they should be included in the article, supported by WP:RS. Also, the material has been put back in its proper place so this is unnecessary duplication. Verbal chat 07:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose the rename proposed below as conspiracy theory is not a pejorative, and the rename would not address teh BLP concerns. As to Cs32en's reply - I feel this list should not exist, and only names of prominent supporters should appear on other templates (hence the other templates would be appropriate for their pages). Verbal chat 09:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Conspiracy Theory" as used in this context is a strongly pejorative term, used by a majority to demean a minority for political ends. This definitely raises WP:BLP concerns. Suggested rename: Template:Supporters for 911 investigation. Wildbear (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my statement below.  Cs32en  10:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal
This discussion has obviously a huge potential to evolve into a full blown chaotic mess that might be compared to group sex. On the basis of the issues raises by participants in this discussion, I'll make a proposal to Ice Cold Beer, and I hope that we'll be able to sort things out. This does not close the formal process here, feel free to add your voice to the ongoing discussion!  Cs32en  08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have a template:911ct template.--Sloane (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • then this is an issue or merging, not deleting. Ikip (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to merge, all the information is already in the template. We don't need five different templates for the same subject.--Sloane (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This template was split out of {{911ct}} through subarticles; it needs to be merged back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep BLP concerns? It is a template, listing people's names. What violations of BLP could this possibly have? Ikip (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By saying they are proponents of a conspiracy theory widely thought to be ridiculous to be offensive? And doing so without providing any source for the claim. Charles Edward (Talk)
    • Delete' Such a list, if needed, could be put on the conspiracy page itself. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - redundant; blp concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge (all) back into {{911ct}}. Deletion would cause significant damage to articles. There are no credible BLP concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "demerge" has already occurred. Hence no reason to keep this? Verbal chat 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral, in that case. We have to make sure that the {{911ct}} ends up on all pages which this one now appears on. The merge consists not only of merging the templates, but of merging the uses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, useful navigation box to a widely sought topic, and more so than its partner template, due partly to compactness and collapsibility.
      • Nominator's reasons are wholly invalid, as nom is imputing promotional motives to the template editors without evidence, and alluding to BLP concerns when some of these self-identify as conspiracy theorists (Rense, A. Jones) and others as alternative theorists.
      • The "name" or the text atop the template is wholly a red herring, because although "conspiracy theories" is pejorative and the text should change to "alternative theories", that is irrelevant to the usability and desirability of the navigation of this topic.
      • Discussion of fringe theories, if this is one, properly includes good lists of proponents of those theories; the use of WP:FRINGE would only apply if this template were used in mainstream 9/11 articles.
      • It is presumed, as in all summaries, that sourcing of the names as alternative theorists is present in their own articles (not necessarily in the main article).
      • Templates are not redundant with categories and lists, but they have different overlapping functions.
      • Template is partly redundant with 911ct, but that is because 911ct is currently too big; two templates are preferable and their categorizations are easily distinguished. Transclusion should be dropped, the "/Supporters" transclusion piece should be nominated instead of the current nomination, and the 911ct should be cut back. Keeping all three is also viable because they are well-constructed, but considering both alternatives the separation of the two main templates is preferable. Merging would be a very weak third-place position for me, and only in case consensus for keep is unclear.
      • Affirm most of what Cs32en says, including the undue weight of listing the whole uncollapsed 911ct template in all theorist articles; and affirm Arthur's point that deletion would damage the articles.
      • Finally, it is abundantly clear that many commenters, including myself, have interests informing their comments, and that the use of policy is (as so often) both relatively legitimate and also a vehicle for additional interests. It is well-known that a deletionist argument is often used as an incremental step toward ever more imbalanced deletionism (such as sanitizing some theorist articles of all 9/11 reference); and exactly the same is true of inclusionism (such as adding names not clearly self-identified as alternate theorists). The question should be decided on policy by unaligned parties, rather than by us trying to outshout each other. JJB 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Bored Delete assuming the content is back in {{911ct}}. This whole subject is given undue weight. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with two conditions: 1. the linked articles in this template contain a sub-section related to 9/11, like Andreas von Bülow#9.2F11 or Jimmy Walter#Reopen_9.2F11_campaign, and 2. the links in this template point directly to those sub-sections. Else, I fail to see the interest in just citing people names and I'm afraid this template will quickly become over-crowded. — Xavier, 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom, also template will probably become overcrowded.WackoJackO 23:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This template is unobtrusive and provides a very quick reference for those readers interested in seeing who have gone public in supporting various aspects of CT's plus it avoids problems with WP:undue. I would prefer this template on bio pages with the parent template reserved for topic pages. My only concern is that it should be limited to a reasonable level of notability to avoid too many names. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bored Delete per Fiddle Faddle. the "undue weight" argument is far more persuasive than anything else involved here. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am not a supporter of these theories, but in the interest of completeness, I think they should be allowed to stay. This whole "conspiracy theory" angle really can open up a bigger box of worms (ie: what is the historical evidence for Jesus, Adam & Eve, Noah, etc.). That being said, in the interest of fairness, if a template exists for supporters, there should also be one for non-supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanmcginty (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by Cs32en edit

    The list of people included in the template is transcluded from Template:911ct/Supporters. It has been in use in Template:911ct since 2007, and is an element in the 9/11 topic area that is largely uncontroversial between the involved editors. Ice Cold Beer himself has apparently not objected to using the list during this time. He edited the list, correcting a formatting error, on Jan. 14, 2008 (diff).

    The objections raised by Ice Cold Beer should therefore be addressed in a NfD with regard to Template:911ct/Supporters.

    I have created Template:911ct supporters to resolve issues regarding the appropriate weight that the information included in Template:911ct should be given to in the respective articles. Template:911ct states in its description: "This template is intended to be deployed at the foot of the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, and on article pages of people and organisations who are proponents of, or are linked in some manner with, such articles."

    Template:911ct thus is intended to be used in the articles of the persons that are included in the template. However, some of these persons are notable for a number of other things, besides their support of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In these cases, the large and uncollapsed Template:911ct would give undue weight to the information. For this reason, I have created Template:911ct supporters, which is collapsed by default, and smaller when opened. The template also retains the name "9/11 conspiracy theories" (although this is not transcluded from a common root sub-template at present).

    Template:911ct supporters should therefore be kept, and possible BLP issues should be adressed with respect to Template:911ct/Supporters and/or on the talk pages of the respective BLP articles.  Cs32en  07:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer to Verbal
    If "conspiracy theory is not a pejorative", as you say, then there would not be any specific BLP concerns. This list of people has been regularly checked and updated by a large number of editors with quite different POVs on the issue, and the sources in the respective articles are reliable and verifiable.  Cs32en  10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing people as being supporters of this theory, without context or supported by WP:RS, is the problem. The list is too long anyway. Verbal chat 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of people and the question of whether the template appears in a given article must be dealt with at the respective articles' pages, and at Template:911ct/Supporters.  Cs32en  15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on Arthur Rubin's concerns
    The use of the transcluded sub-templates ensures that the information provided by both formats (911ct and 911ct supporters) is identical, i.e. the same list of supporters is being displayed. Maintainance is also easy, as only the sub-template must be updated. Template:911ct supporters addresses the WP:UNDUE concerns, and is constructed in a way that ensures consistency. In particular, Template:911ct cannot be displayed in all the relevant pages because of WP:UNDUE.  Cs32en  15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More statements by others edit
    Hi Woohookitty — please don't add any categories to the template, such as "xy-related templates", as these categories would show up on the pages where the template appears.  Cs32en  07:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Addendum: you can add "__HIDDENCAT__" to your category page, then the category does not show up on the articles where the template is being transcluded.  Cs32en  18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. The big problem is that is referring to people supporting a theory. This is not an important connection between people. Think of "Incarnation theory supporters", "Jesus didn't exist supporters", "Jesus exists supporters", etc. Articles about a theory have to be connected with templates. That why we have one for this theory. People who support a theory should not be supported. Living people may change ideas during their life. This templates takes the expected and welcome {{911ct}} and mixes it with people from all kinds (journalists, artists, politician, etc.) And a question arises: If an artist supports or rejects a scientific theory or an historical event, why should that affect the theory or the event? I think we should stick in the other nice template and delete this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick clarification on the nature of both templates: {{911ct}} has always contained a list of people (actually a larger number of people than {{911ct supporters}}).  Cs32en  17:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into {{911ct}}, and Delete. We don't need two templates with the exact same purpose, with much of the same content in both. (I'm not convinced we even need one, but that's a different matter.) Robofish (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: recalling that "merge and delete" is contradictory, I believe the consensus being achieved at User talk:Ice Cold Beer by Cs32en toward merge may support finding a consensus of merge components in the comments above, including my "weak third" preference. JJB 22:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    I would say that there is no problem to keep any of them as soon as they contain no people in them! This is the key here. We should include a list of supporters. To determine a list of the most notable supporters I think it could lead us to Original Research and POV. Moreover, it could lead in more templates to do the same. Imagine what would happen if we add list of supporters in {{Communism}} or {{Socialism}} etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (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:Los Angeles Xtreme 2001 XFL 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 section.

    The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Los Angeles Xtreme 2001 XFL Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

    We have a long standing precedent against templates of this sort. And I think it's especially the case for a league which lasted a single season. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep We have almost no continuity with templates. We have them for every NFL championship, draft class, NCAA Championships, World Series, NBA Championship, etc... If a pro team wins a league title, then it gets a template. It's a very simple policy and keeps a level of continuity for the sports articles.
    Secondly Pro Football is not limited to the NFL. The NFL is only the major football league today, but that always wasn't the case. The AFL I, AFL II, and AFL III are historicaly viewed to be on the same level as the NFL. The USFL, WFL, WLAF and the XFL were also highly publicized major pro football outlets that competited w/ the NFL, but lost out due to financial issues. The Ohio League and the New York Pro Football League helped form the NFL and deserves the same recognition via championship templates from a historical standpoint. If we're judging this issue based the elitism of the NFL, remember many of the past and present NFL teams played outside of the NFL in different leagues (see. Rock Island Independents, Cleveland Rams). Also many early NFL teams played games against independent teams and those from other leagues, like the Pre-NFL versions of the Pottsville Maroons and the Frankford Yellow Jackets and the always independent Ironton Tanks.
    Thirdly many pro football players who won either NFL Championships or Super Bowls have also won other major league championships like, Tommy Maddox, Kelvin Bryant, Thom Dornbrook, and HOFer Pete Henry (just to name a few). So they deserve to have all of their championships displayed, not just those from the NFL.--PA Pen (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern here is that this was a one year league so this ends up being clutter more than anything else. The XFL simply wasn't considered a major sports league by most outfits. If we use as broad a scope as you suggest, we will have massive template clutter. More than a couple of navigational templates on a page is NOT a good thing. That's why we tend to limit these sorts of templates to major sports leagues. And even that is iffy. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 04:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the XFL was a major sports league. It was a failure. However it was the goal of Vince McMahon for the XFL to be a major sports league. It folded after one season, however just like the AFL, USFL and WFL, the XFL was designed to somehow compete and overthrow the NFL as the premier football league. Now I disagree with giving templates to minor leagues, like the Arena Football League or NFL Europe, and feel that only historical major leagues deserve the templates. So really the main issue is what to consider a major league. From a historical standpoint, there were dozens of early football teams that were said to be on par w/ the early NFL. --PA Pen (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as template clutter. Winning a championship is notable, but teammates in any given year is not. If there is no reason to create a template for each season played by a team, there is no reason to create one for a championship season either. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a great argument. Resolute 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the template has to go. The XFL was indeed a major pro league, but no more so than the AFL, CFL, or NFL Europe. In fact, the majority of the players in the XFL either came from or ended up in one of those three leagues. So if we don't have templates for every single Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and NFL Europe champion then I don't see why we should have one for the only XFL championship team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.21 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The AFL does have championship templates. They were a major league that challenged the NFL, before merging. Those templates are no different than a proposed XFL, USFL or WFL Champs template.--PA Pen (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the modern-day AFL, or Arena Football League. Please read my entire post before responding to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.34 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The modern CFL and AFL are minor league teams. The XFL, being a major start-up league, took players from the minors just as the NHL did during the 1967 NHL expansion, which doubled the size of the league. Granted the XFL went bankrupt and those players went back to the minors. However if the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL ever retracted 8 teams most of those players would be back in the minors. The XFL was a newly formed major league competing w/ the NFL. It was designed to have it's early teams consist of minor league players, until it could stand on equal footing w/ the NFL. That never happened, so the league folded. Nothing in this arguement can dispute the fact the XFL was a major league team. Yes, it had inferior players but so did many NFL teams in the 1920's, when compared to many idependent teams, and the college game.--PA Pen (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFL and CFL are NOT minor leagues. Far from it. Often times, they're simply looking for different types of players than the NFL is looking for. Former NFL starters like Quincy Carter got laughed out of the Arena League. Because in the AFL, they're looking for lateral quickness, accuracy, and stamina rather than arm strength and vertical speed. Because neither of the latter do you any good on a tiny field. Remember that most players in the XFL weren't even stars in the Arena League or Canadian League. And also remember that more players from the AFL in a given year make the jump into the NFL than did from the XFL to the NFL after the former folded. The AFL's level of play was a lot higher than the XFL's, coming from someone who has watched every pro football league from the USFL to the IFL to the CIFL to af2. The stigma that the AFL is "minor league" is a false one. That's why you don't see the rosters populated by NFL rejects. More often than not, a failure in the NFL is also a failure in the AFL. And big time successes in the AFL turn out to be great NFL players (Kurt Warner). Take Tommy Maddox, for example. He wasn't even a very good Arena Football quarterback. Yet, he was the XFL MVP and NFL Comeback player of the year. The level of play in the NFL is higher than that of the AFL, but the difference isn't nearly as large as most people think. Ask anyone who has played in both leagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.34 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a violation of WP:EMBED and WP:NAVBOX. Embed says links in navboxes should already be expected to be found on the articles the box is on. And you would not find these random players on each others articles as they are not defining of each other. Navbox says that navboxes should not be used when the only thing connecting them are a sports championship. -Djsasso (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per PAPen.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (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:Organ Scholars of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow 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) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Organ Scholars of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
    Template:Organ Scholars of St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Episcopal) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

    Article text hidden away in a template, making it difficult for editors; unreferenced list of non-notable people, else I would say substitute and delete. BencherliteTalk 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Most definited NOT - The information in these two templates is used in two articles. Taking the points made in turn:
    • Text hidden - not for anyone familar with templates
    • Difficult for editors - makes it much easier for editors as the two articles were the list is used are kept synchronised
    • Unreferenced list of non-notable people - if this applies to the templates, it also applies to the main list of Organ Scholars and the list of Organists, Assistant Orgnaist and Organ Scholars on the various Cathedral articles.
    Substitution would not answer the points made.
    --Stewart (talk | edits) 05:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the template namespace guideline, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." That answers the first two points.
    • The Glasgow list is now referenced, thank you, so that can be substituted. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not much of an argument for keeping anything that lacks references.
    • BencherliteTalk 21:48, 30 April 2009 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_30&oldid=1146591957"