Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 27

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating this template and the large class of templates with the prefix RPOTD/date (here) for deletion (or userfication by someone with a bulk-edit tool that can handle almost 200 moves - I'm not doing it by hand). This userspace-based effort basically duplicates the featured picture on the main page. It is also dormant or dead, and the userspace pages where the efforts were based belong to an editor (User:GeorgeMoney) that is "retired". Thetrick (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - old, redundant templates for an inactive process run by a departed user. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the consensus is delete, the template should be subst'ed thru beforehand; it's used in an awful lot of places. –
  talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep - While it is from a retired editor and it has been inactive for a while, I have to disagree with the nom that it "basically duplicates the featured picture on the main page." These pics are ones that would never make the front page, and it was created to give people who don't have the best photog skills a chance to be recognized. It'd take a lot of work and effort, which I, unfortunately, don't have lately with my new job (though if it were given a chance, I could take it over in the future), but if someone could maintain it in the meantime, I see it as a valuable asset, mainly because people are being recognized for work that's no worse than anyone else's, just not as crisp or clear a sit should be, and it encourages more contribution. Just my 2¢....
  In Tampa 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep, per EaglesFan's excellent reasoning. –
  talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment How about we move all of the subpages to someone's userspace (not mine), but keep the template. The template could be a redirect to the new userspace where everything will be located, to not break all of the other pages on which it is transcluded.
  Thus, the only thing related to the RPOTD that will be in the template space is one single template, which will be a redirect anyways.
  This could be easily done with AWB or a bot script: simply move each page from Template:RPOTD/Whatever to User:Whoever/potd/Whatever, then on Template:RPOTD: #REDIRECT [[User:Whoever/potd]] --GM 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If someone can shove the majority of this pile into userspace I'll withdraw the nom. --Thetrick (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment OK, I will try to find a userspace for all of this to go into. I don't want it to be mine, since I am no longer maintaining it, and it just wouldn't be fair to all of the maintainers. --GM 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I'll take GM's word that he will make an effort to move this to userspace. --Thetrick (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, it was a great idea to begin with, but it was incredibly difficult to keep updated when you don't have a lot of help. Maybe, if deleted, it could be revived sometime in the future if there ever was a lot more users committed to keep it going. --
  talk•contribs 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Ok, Presidentman (formerly Patricknoddy) has volunteered to maintain and keep the RPOTD in his userspace. Once it is all finalized I will make a script (or do it myself) and move all the pages there. Then this TfD can be finally put to rest :). GM 22:01, 14 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:America's Top 10 Golf Courses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is basically an

• Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not a useful navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 04:09, 1 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan-Korea Early Exchanges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused and has not been touched for about a year. Clearly a single use template in any case. — PC78 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Potentially interesting content, but needs to be made/jammed into an article. --Thetrick (talk) 01:45, 30 June 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.

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 redirect to {{

Template:Blog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

User-built warning template. Duplicates OR-note and probably others. Thetrick (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• if its duplicate list the other template link, otherwise keep this template, just for convience of people's writings.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It only has one use, and duplicates {{
    OR-note}} and the series starting with {{uw-nor1}}. --Thetrick (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{
  OR-note}}, or one of the other 'official' Original Research templates - there's no need for one this specific. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 1 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test4b-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Odd template that mentions vandalism has occurred, but does not accuse the individual of doing it, mentions further blocks are possible, yet doesn't stress this is a level 4 warnings, maybe this template is too nice, if that is possible. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. That is one incredibly generic template... Reso lute 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the nominator says, this template is just too 'nice' for a level 4 warning (if that's what it's supposed to be). Also, it just doesn't have any clear purpose, so rather than redirecting somewhere should probably just be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 04:05, 1 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.

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Trivial information, indiscriminate. It is not, for example, important to know that Peter Nedved appeared in the 2004 SI Swimsuit issue along with Alex Rodriguez, Anna Kounrakova or Jessica White, or that one of the shoot locations was Wyoming. — Reso lute 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating:

• {{1984SISwimsuit}}
• {{1996SISwimsuit}}
• {{1997SISwimsuit}}
• {{1998SISwimsuit}}
• {{1999SISwimsuit}}
• {{2000SISwimsuit}}
• {{2001SISwimsuit}}
• {{2002SISwimsuit}}
• {{2003SISwimsuit}}
• {{2004SISwimsuit}}
• {{2005SISwimsuit}}
• {{2006SISwimsuit}}
• {{2007SISwimsuit}}
• {{2008SISwimsuit}}
• Keep These template are the modelling analogue of Championship team templates, which serve as navigational aids for all sports. The nomination of this TFD has confused the content of particular templates with their encyclopedic value as navigational templates. If you believe the templates are too detailed that should be debated elsewhere.--
  WP:LOTM) 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "The modelling analogue of Championship team templates"? ^[citation needed] Never mind that the championship team templates themselves have been deleted in the past as well, so hardly a strong argument. And no, I am not arguing that the templates are too detailed, obviously. I am arguing that they are indiscriminate. These templates attempt to link completely unrelated topics together. Unless you think, to use my example, that a tennis player, a hockey player, a model, a U.S. state and a baseball player are related topics. Reso lute 02:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar with a single sports championship template that has been deleted. The ones I have created remain {{
      WP:LOTM) 08:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Here is one such TfD, that links to four more. This is not a template just for models, so please dont waste time with irrelevant comparisons. I will ask you again: how are these templates anything but
        indiscriminate information? More to the point, appearing in the swimsuit issue is clearly non-defining for everyone outside of the models listed, as of the names I listed above, only White's article even mentions she appeared in a swimsuit issue. This is nothing more than a template for the sake of a template. Reso lute 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I apologize for the tardy reply. I have been travelling. As I said before, the template is a navigational aid. Even though I think you will ignore it, I will repeat, that if your issue is with level of detail, I will remove added detail. The swimsuit issue is also defining for the photographers. See
          WP:LOTM) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Yes, I can. You are confusing notability standards with what a template is for. I would certainly agree that the models and photographers would consider being involved with a SI swimsuit issue a notable fact. Even pared down to just models, the template really doesn't add anything that couldn't be conveyed in a superior fashion by using a category (and not a category for each year, just one for all swimsuit issues). Reso lute 02:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Such categories have been deleted in the past.--
              WP:LOTM) 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Delete If each of the issues is so important, then articles should be written for them. These templates are providing far more information than exists in the main article, without references or context. --Thetrick (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered the implication of the deletion of the templates for articles such as
    WP:LOTM) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Also consider the implications for Joanne Gair.--TonyTheTiger

(

• • • What implications would those be? Reso lute 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates are important navigational templates for those individuals and for the photographers help the reader to easily establish their notability.--
        WP:LOTM) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Personally, I do not see any use as a navigation aid, and notability is established by the article, not a template. In the case of Joanne Gair, removing the half dozen templates on her article would not also remove the giant section on her appearances in SI. So I really do not see any negative implications on removing these templates. Reso lute 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 23:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serving a very limited purpose - and what articles? Where? Each year has an article linked to the template? Hang on..? Um.? Oh! The overreaching article Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue? Which really seems more like a fancy list? Okay, well, the one article is fine, but the individual year templates are so limited in their scope and uncited. This information might best be conveyed in a list article for that year's issue (i.e. - List of people in 2008 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?) then the wikilink for that list is worked right into the bios of relevant individuals (i.e. - Patrick appeared in the 2008 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue). ZueJay (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the encouragement of

Yamila Diaz" as well as Joanne Gair. I will stand by my vote. I think the long list of templates at the end of the page unbalances these articles and makes some of them look very stubby. I would suggest a single template replace these year-by-year templates, linking to list articles or traditional articles for each year. For a very quick and incomplete example of what I mean, see here. ZueJay (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I like the templates because it is a valuable tool. It is a quick reference and I support keeping it.
  talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The templates are convenient, but perhaps overloaded with unnecessary information (do we really need quick references as to which models did bodypainting shoots?). Keep the model lists, but scrap everything else, IMO. Mbinebri (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Even the photographers such as
    WP:LOTM) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - these do not seem like particularly useful navigational templates, and cause unnecessary clutter as many models are included in several of them. This is the type of information that would be better presented through a list than through a series of templates. Terraxos (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per
  WP:EMBED links in nav boxes should only include articles which would resonably be found in the article already. The fact that person a was in the same SI issue is not likely to be found in the bio of person b. The fact that person a worked with person b for a couple days at a photoshoot is also non-defining of person b. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Too trivial and indiscriminate. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 4 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.