Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 9

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 no consensus to delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Aqueduct (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

• Oppose. There are already 37 fields in {{
  Infobox Bridge}} would add (I think) 3 more fields, thus making a rather confusing, 50 field template. . Ronhjones (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What makes you think that would be unacceptable? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say unacceptable, just confusing. Surely it's easier to use a template, where it's possible to fill in nearly all the fields - that can then make the editor look for the data to add, if half of the fields are left empty, then useful data might be missed. The templates are (I think) different widths, so that might also affect page layout as well. Ronhjones (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's either acceptable, in which case the templates get merged; or not, in which case they don't. I've not seen a template deletion proposal rejected yet, because of the number of fields; we generally tend to merge and standardise similar templates. Template width should be immaterial because page layout is different for each user, dependent on window size, screen resolution and font size settings. I note that you describe {{
        Infobox AqueductNavigable}}, on its talk page, as "basically a merge of the aqueduct and bridge templates". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Yes, I said it's a merge - as that was the easist way to start to construct it. There are also unique fields in it as well, not just a plain merge (i.e Bridges do not have towpath, and if not necessary to know if boats can pass). If you just want to merge similar then you must surely add {{
          Infobox Bridge type}} + {{Bridges in Singapore}} + {{Infobox U.S. Covered Bridge}} - becuase there is not much novel items in these one - or maybe you are planning these next?. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Ronhjones (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Three of those now listed; above scheduled for deletion. {{
            Infobox Bridge type}} is not of the same type. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]

 Relisted Happy‑melon 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Oppose Ronhjones (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • please don't make a duplicate vote Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I said still - as a reply to the re-listing. Ronhjones (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless we merge all road and waterways into a single template which would have a few thousand entries <g>. Collect (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep We should not be making things complicated by merging different types of item into a single template just to save an extra template. Keith D (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not "different types of item"; they are all bridges and, in the latter case, still aqueducts. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:34, 12 February 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.

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 replace and then delete. JPG-GR (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Template:CIA WFB 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
2. Template:CIA WFB 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
3. Template:CIA WFB 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
4. Template:CIA WFB 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
5. Template:CIA WFB 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
6. Template:CIA WFB 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
7. Template:CIA WFB 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
8. Template:Factbook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
   )
9. Template:Factbook talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have created a new template, {{

• Agree. Kudos to Eastlaw for the thankless, but necessary, task of organizing these templates. G716 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done. Seems unobjectionable to me. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace, new one is better. feydey (talk) 08:42, 10 February 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.

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) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uncontroversial WikiProject cleanup;

• Delete per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 21:56, 17 February 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.

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 G3 as blatant misinformation/G8 as parent was deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alfred Abbas

Template:Alfred Abbas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Abbas Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:43, 9 February 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.

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) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincolnshire powerstations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Power station navboxes for each of the nine regions of England have recently been created. Seeing as Lincolnshire is not one of the regions of England, this navbox's content has been incorperated into {{

• Delete - orphaned and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:48, 17 February 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.

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) 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Joint Expedition Against Franklin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to have been a campaign box for a single battle. Having recently reconstituted the associated article, this template is now orphaned and apparently purposeless. —

• Delete per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep created by an editor very active in Civil War articles. He may very well intend linking the template to related battles in an extended campaign. At least unless WhiteWolf (insert "Wild Wolf") says to delete, I would keep it. Collect (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't
    =/\= | 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom. The template should be judged on its own merits, rather than on the activity status of its creator. It was created nearly three months ago and still contains a link to just one article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per nom. astatine-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - orphaned and unused. Robofish (talk) 21:48, 17 February 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.

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. Keep arguments included "does no harm", "provides useful info", and "other templates may need deleting more". Delete arguments included "not the right use for a template", "this job better served by a category or inline text". I ignored the delete vote with no rationale. I felt the delete arguments outweighed the keeps here. delldot ∇. 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This template is bulky and unnecessary for articles. It states that:

"<insert Indian tribe here> is one of the 562 Indian Tribal Entities within the contiguous 48 States recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs included in the latest list issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior of the United States on April 4, 2008."

This provides nothing that a category couldn't. — Moe ε 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here's the category: Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States. — Moe ε 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a good example of template creep. There is no good reason to have a big honking template on a page when a category can do a superior job of conveying the same information. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A category listing wouldn't be noticed. The template is educational because many Americans are not familiar with idea of tribal governments today or their relation to the federal government. I image most people wouldn't even think to ask if a group is a federally recognized tribe or not. A quick glance at the staggering
  List of unrecognized tribes in the United States reveals how many organizations out there claim to be Indian tribes. Additionally, the template lets readers immediately know that the tribe still exists today and isn't a mere relic of the past. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply
  ]

Everything you talk about: what tribes are recognized, which ones arent and the educational value, should already be addressed in the main context of the article. There are already articles here on a List of

fix it, but the template doesn't aid in navigation in any way, which should be the primary function of templates to begin with. Templates aren't there to be extra appendages to articles. — Moe ε 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note At this point, I add Template:NativeFederallyUnrecognized to the discussion as well. It links to a mere one article out of the many it could quite possibly link to. It is essentially the same thing, but instead of saying it is recognized by the government, articles tags by this template are not recognized. — Moe ε 05:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss issues of being federally-recognized versus the many unrecognized tribes in the text of every single article about a Native American tribe would be unnecessarily redundant. I don't believe most non-Indians out there are familiar enough with issues to look up the List of Federally Recognized Tribes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

And this is why I said "

fix it". Does the Cherokee article need a humongous template at the bottom saying "We are recognized!"? No. Simply adding in the lead paragraph in the main context of the Cherokee article "The Cherokee tribe is officially recognized as an Indian tribe etc. etc." with a reference would be sufficient (in addition to the category Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States listed at the bottom. — Moe ε 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Not the longest template AFAIK. And with others seeking to merge other templates into bigger ones, that would seem the place to start. The group is well-defined, and a normal use of a template. Collect (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The size of the template is irrelevant, its the fact its a big template that does nothing but sit at the bottom of articles spouting off random article contents instead of doing what templates are supposed to do. — Moe ε 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No, this is not a normal use of a template—this is "a substitute for usual article content", against Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage. We aren't in the business of visually legitimizing/refuting status via showy templates with official seals. We don't, to my knowledge, slap 'enacted into law' or 'vetoed' templates on articles about proposed legislation, or put 'accredited' or 'nonaccredited' templates on schools. The article text should state whether the tribe is recognized (at which point it can link to the explanatory article/list), and the article should be categorized accordingly. It may have been started with the right intentions, but this template is POV-pushing and unnecessary. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete astatine-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 20:51, 12 February 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.