Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 10

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China Talk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was created about 4 months ago and is currently used only on the author's user page. A similar template created by the same editor was deleted a few days ago

• Delete - arbitrary scope/redundant to already established China navboxes. –Pomte 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unused template that appears to be an experiment or error. Neil916 (Talk) 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --
  WikiProject Television) 19:04, 12 April 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

An arbitrary list of people. Both the inclusion of one "prominent person" and not including another are POV. bogdan 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template is used as a navigation box on articles on significant people in the Enlightenment. I disagree about the POV issues since there does not appear to be anything stopping an editor from adding to the template, and in fact the template's talk page appears to be an active discussion about whether or not certain historical figures should be added or not. The discussion seems to revolve around whether or not that person was significant around a particular time period vs. whether or not they are "prominent" enough for inclusion. Neil916 (Talk) 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a relevant infobox to figures of the enlightenment. We can't quit creating templates that are relevant just because they can't include every figure. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR; list is way too arbitrary. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first and foremost purpose of templates is to aid navigation between articles, which this template does. Any template on a broad topic such as "The Enlightenment" or "History" is bound to exclude many articles that fall into that category, but there's no reason we shouldn't have templates for broad topics. If the issue is the use of the word "prominent", I think that can be deleted without taking anything away from the template. "People by country" is just as clear. – Black Falcon 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not arbitrary; consensus built at talk page. Non-inclusion does not directly imply the person is not prominent. Inclusion is not inherently POV in a way that's too detrimental or objectively reparable; in fact, Age of Enlightenment and any other template/article are POV by listing some important figures/relevant information and possibly excluding other worthwhile ones. –Pomte 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Neil916. —dima/talk/ 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeps per nominator Update: per PomteJer10 95 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator was proposing deletion of this article. Neil916 (Talk) 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is not arbitrary and is very informative and useful. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep +ref?: It might be a good idea however to add a noinclude comment that directs people to some sources perhaps.

—The preceding

• Delete. List is not quite "arbitrary", but is definitely subjective and original research. The discussion of who to include hasn't mentioned any sources so far other than Wikipedia articles. It's basically a list of certain editors favorite Enlightenment figures. No objective criteria for inclusion have been proposed so far (that I have seen). Unless objective criteria are proposed and agreed upon, this template should be deleted. Kaldari 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctantly keep. It is huge monster of a template and so my initial instinct was to vote delete. However, I have to admit I found it a very useful navigational aid. Also nothing on the wikipedia is arbitrary POV - every entry ultimately gets slugged out by consensus. That is what we are here for. Arbitrariness is only temporary here :-) The real question is one of utility. bunix 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I find the template rather large and unwieldly visually (perhaps some redesigning could fix this), I think that the idea itself is legitimate and I think that it could help users. I think that talk pages should be used for discussion for inclusion on the template more often. I don't think that figures or texts should be included without some sort of citation being made on a talk page (this would eliminate any POV problems). I was a bit dismayed, for example, to see a page I worked on (
  Awadewit 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep This is a useful method of linking a disparate but highly influential movement. My knowledge of history is poor, and whilst the British, American and German contingent are known to me the list of extraordinary individuals from half a dozen countries on the template is, far from being 'unwieldy', 'arbitrary' or 'original researh' a genuine educational resource. I recently came across an Equadorian who probably should be included too. Let's not be small-minded about this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:55, 14 April 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Relistings are common on AFD but generally not needed on other processes, which have high visibility and generally work on the principle of "no objections = go for it". >Radiant< 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Record charts 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Record charts 72 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

• Delete per guideline. There appears to be past consensus that trajectories are too trivial to be encyclopedic, though it may be disputed once again at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Userfy if it is the creator's wish. –Pomte 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have combined these three nominations into one.
  Gracenotes^T § 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:20, 10 April 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carolina Hurricanes 2006 Stanley Cup Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Potentially bad precident, and somewhat indiscriminate. Teammates in any given year, even a championship season, are not usually a key aspect of a player's identity. Potential to overload certain articles with such templates if one is created for every Stanley Cup and major international championship. A category that served the same function was recently deleted, though for slightly different reasons. In short, not particularly useful. See discussion at WP:HOCKEY.

• Also nominating Template:Tampa Bay Lightning 2004 Stanley Cup Team. Resolute 05:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to also nominate Template:Colorado Avalanche 2001 Stanley Cup Team. I support Delete All for these templates per discussion on WP:HOCKEY. --Pparazorback 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Imagine such templates for the Montreal Canadiens & Toronto Maple Leafs? and Henri Richard? GoodDay 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No-notable, dated category. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. Kaiser matias 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a category dedicated to the same thing. Briememory 02:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. --
  WikiProject Television) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all Using a navigation box in this way is not a "scalable solution" for articles on team sport athletes. I think the best solution for this kind of situation would be expanding List of Stanley Cup champions to include the roster of each winning team (i.e. the names engraved on the Cup), and a simple "See also" link to that page from player articles. Andrwsc 20:01, 13 April 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per

Template:Location map Alberta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy Delete. I tried to use this map but it is not in orthographic projection, so the dot will be slightly off. I have since started using a manual type of location map. – MJCdetroit 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it works perfectly well on
  Gracenotes^T § 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Or at least appears to, I mean, in comparison with the Google maps image. Maybe the image needs altering, and the parameters in this template as well?
    Gracenotes^T § 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Reply to comment. The example that you gave does not use Template:Location map Alberta. It uses the map Image:Census divisions AB.png which is the same map used by Template:Location map Alberta. However because Image:Census divisions AB.png is not in orthorgraphic projection, which basically means it is flat and doesn't account for the curve of the Earth, the automatically placed "dot" can be slight off. This seems to have happened the farther north that the settlement was. Cochrane, Alberta uses |dot_x= 88 |dot_y= 241 to place the dot on the mark. Whereas Template:Location map Alberta (if it worked correctly) relied on the coordinates to automatically place the dot. —MJCdetroit 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps that can be rectified by merely uploading a different image, and changing the data?
    Gracenotes^T § 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There are not any maps of Alberta in orthorgraphic projection at this time. —MJCdetroit 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag the template with {{
  Db-author}} to speedy delete it, if you think the edit history is useless. –Pomte 10:16, 10 April 2007 (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.