Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12 edit

Template:U (Super Junior) 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U (Super Junior) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Template for a single and its B-sides. Unused and unnecessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (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:All-Steinway Schools 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. The weak relationship among the articles and the size of the navbox indicate that this is better handled with a category. There are also concerns that the function of the navbox is brand promotion. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-Steinway Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a promotional template that serves no navigational purpose and merely clutters the articles to which it is being appended. It is highly unlikely that anyone reading, for example, Curtis Institute of Music or Juilliard School would seek to navigate to other schools based on the brand of piano used at the school.

The template promoting Steinway was created by a SPA editor Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with a COI history regarding Steinway. See the many comments at Talk:Steinway & Sons; this ANI; the various points made on his user talk page;, and his attempts to delete articles on pianos of Steinway competitors (e.g., here and here).

This editor is the only editor adding the template to the articles in which it appears ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]); and is reverting any removals ([12], [13], [14], [15]).

If the brand of pianos used by a school is worth tracking, this objective is far better met as a category. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For us music students it is very important what instrument brands and professors an academy has, so yes, we want to go to an article on a particular school, and want to navigate to other schools that use the same brand of piano. When music students look for academies the piano brands and the pianos' condition are some of the most important criterias. Therefore the following sentence from above is wrong according to music students: "It is highly unlikely that anyone reading, for example, Curtis Institute of Music or Juilliard School would seek to navigate to other schools based on the brand of piano used at the school."
If you like you can also see:
If the template has to be deleted then this old template from 2007 must and will be deleted too Template:British Royal Warrant holders according to User:TJRC's argumentation on the discussion page. No one is likely to go to an article on a particular company, and want to navigate to other companies from completely other industries that also holds royal warrants.
Regarding the sentence above "This editor is the only editor adding the template to the articles in which it appears..." – it is pretty obviously that I am so far the only editor who has added the template, because the template is very very new. The template is created March 12, 2010, which is the same day this deletion is nominated. Just very few editors know about this template so far. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that per WP:NAV this is not navbox material. The existing Category:All-Steinway Schools is sufficient, and linking, whether by navbox or by category, articles dealing with schools that are not specifically music schools, in which there's no mention of Steinway pianos, is inappropriate. Deor (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is a little large, and I have to agree that someone visiting a school's page may be unlikely to start navigating through all-Steinway schools. However, despite any COI, I think it is a notable characteristic of the school and should have a mention and RS somewhere, most likely on the Steinway article's section or a split-off list article if it becomes too large. And that cat is severely underpopulated. Ruodyssey (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this template. It is sectioned to help narrow down a certain school for someone looking at it--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per nom: does seem to be a promotional template... Wikipedia does not need it.--Karljoos (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this information is more appropriately referenced in the Steinway article or in a split-off list article. This navbox isn't serving the purpose that navboxes are meant to serve. All sorts of organizations have different lists of schools, school awards, etc., and it wouldn't be appropriate to have a navbox for each one. --Klubbit (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional/advertising, with very little (if any) encyclopædic necessity or value. Even if, as Fanoftheworld says, "When music students look for academies the piano brands and the pianos' condition are some of the most important criterias [sic]", that would not justify putting it here. If the information collection must be preserved, as a category would be far preferable. If we were to go down this road, where would we stop? {{Schools with Spalding golf clubs}}? {{Schools with non-GM dinners}}? The mind boggles. Cheers, LindsayHi 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colleges and universities in the prestigious group All-Steinway Schools have public informed that they have purchased pianos for their music students from Steinway only. "All-Steinway Schools" is a well established thing, unlike your examples "Schools with Spalding golf clubs" and "Schools with non-GM dinners". You can read more about All-Steinway Schools here: Steinway & Sons#All-Steinway Schools. All-Steinway Schools is a big project and the colleges and universities have spend millions of dollars to become All-Steinway Schools. I do not think that any colleges or universities would spend millions of dollars to get in groups like "Schools with Spalding golf clubs" and "Schools with non-GM dinners". Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A template of "schools with pipe organs" would be extremely using for narrowing down choices of schools......--Hywel Ashkenazy (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template appears to be promotional in nature and it contributes to unnecessary/non-notable navbox clutter for many, if not all, of the institutions on the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally delete. No piano student gives a fig about which make of piano they are learning on. Only at the level of professional concert performers does one find some individuals who are particular about brand. This template is pure promotion. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Huntster's comment below, including the sentence "The university made a big deal about this [becoming an All-Steinway School] and attracted quite a few new students to the program.". Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see his comment but I do not see proof of that comment, nor a rough gauge of importance, like how many students. Personally, I do not think that very many students use "All-Steinway school" as a major factor in their choice of educational institution. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable or significant fact, not useful as a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm mixed on this. While I don't think this is necessary for a navbox, this *is* a fairly prestigious group for a university or college to be included in. I know my university, MTSU, had an alumni that donated a whole boatload of money specifically so the school could become an all-Steinway school. The university made a big deal about this and attracted quite a few new students to the program. Perhaps this could simply be translated into a "List of" article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is already a category. I think the category suffices for your purpose. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if one remove the template from an article, then the article will also be removed from the category. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make a new category called Category:All-Steinway_schools. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is no more reason to have an all-Steinway template than there is to have one for schools that only serve a particular brand of soft drink in its cafeteria or only stock a certain brand of mattress in its dorm rooms. The only purpose of this template is for the promotion of the Steinway brand. (Oh, and if there are templates for other piano brands, like Yamaha, they should be deleted as well.)THD3 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The colleges and universities in the prestigious group All-Steinway Schools have public informed that they have purchased pianos for their music students from Steinway only. "All-Steinway Schools" is a well established thing. You can read more about All-Steinway Schools here: Steinway & Sons#All-Steinway Schools. All-Steinway Schools is a big project and the colleges and universities have spend millions of dollars to become All-Steinway Schools. I do not think that any colleges or universities have spend millions of dollars to serve a particular brand of soft drink in its cafeteria or only stock a certain brand of mattress in its dorm rooms. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence given besides creator's assertion that instrument brand plays a role in school selection. I don't care whether my bass clarinet is Buffet-Crampon or Selmer, as long as it sounds good... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...no evidence given besides creator's assertion that instrument brand plays a role in school selection." – Well that's a lie. See for example Huntster's comment above.
hiding irrelevant digression
  • All conservatories, colleges and universities have sometimes poor students. Even Yale Law School, which is ranking top 1,[16] has sometimes a poor student. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading your reply correctly, Fanoftheworld, that's a completely unacceptable personal attack. Please strike it out. Also, you keep saying to others "See Huntster's comment". Notice, please, that I'm *not* advocating that this template be kept, nor am I relating anything other than my own observations in this matter. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong about my objective answer to the question addressed to me, your very own way of reading the reply is not relevant. Also, I know you not are advocating that this template be kept, I have never wrote that you were. It is completely acceptable to write "See Huntster's comment". Please, read carefully! Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You consider calling Sarek a poor student to be an objective answer? I believe the heart of the problem lies there. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not call User:SarekOfVulcan a poor student, that is your very own and subjective way of reading. Once again, please, read carefully.
    I see that you have no comments to my sentence just above: "Also, I know you not are advocating that this template be kept, I have never wrote that you were. It is completely acceptable to write "See Huntster's comment".". Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: User talk:Fanoftheworld#Personal attacks 2. Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant advertising! Truly awful! (Someone should take notes on people voting to "keep". They are either naive newbies or heavily biased spammers themselves!) Student7 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ~ i notice that, since the template was listed here, Fanoftheworld has added it to nearly a hundred articles; i consider this excessive and provocative, as he clearly knew at the time that it was being considered for deletion. It would have been more reasonable to indicate here that there are that number of schools the template should be on. In addition, he has added it to schools it may well not be applicable to (see here). This appears to be a very heavy-handed attempt at promoting Steinway. Cheers, LindsayHi 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the comment "In addition, he has added it to schools it may well not be applicable to (see here)" just above, see: here. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did see it, and was unconvinced by it. You were told that the school was not subject to the template; you re-added it anyway. If the template is only relevant to one portion of the article, it doesn't really belong on it. Anyway, this is irrelevant to a discussion of the template itself, so i'll be quiet. Cheers, LindsayHi 19:13, 17 March 2010 (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:Shades of silver 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. Underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shades of silver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article, silver (color), exists for shades of silver. There's no use for a navbox to navigate just one article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2010 (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:Santiago Province municipalities 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 as redundant Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Santiago Province municipalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Communes in Santiago Metropolitan Region and only used on one page. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2010 (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:KS cities and mayors of 100,000 population 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KS cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the point of this template. This template is only useful if you want to look up the current mayor of a city and you can find that in the infobox. Also, the mayor typically changes every four years depending on the city so this would have to change with that, and when/if Lawrence is ever added we would have to change the mayor every year. Plus, currently only two mayors even have links to an article. What's the point of having the name in the template if its redlinked? If mayors really need to be showcased then maybe an article for each city (e.g. "List of Mayors in Wichita, Kansas") or something like that that shows all the mayors, not just the current one. And if there's a mayor who has enough to warrant an article then they can be linked to their own article. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 04:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let the listers create a historical backlog like with Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States. This template has the potential to be well outdated by the next time someone gets around to fixing it (yes, even 4 years later). I don't have a problem with the redlinks, however. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Nomination this is a rather pointless template which serve no useful purpose. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (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:2006 South African municipal election 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 as obsolete. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2006 South African municipal election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a navbox template for a series of articles describing the results of the South African municipal election, 2006 in each District of South Africa. Most of the articles didn't exist, and those that did were stubs. I merged them all into the main article, so this template is now unnecessary. htonl (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good show. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (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_discussion/Log/2010_March_12&oldid=1138694388"