Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 21

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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

• Keep Admins are supposed to go by consensus, and people have been known to accidentally cast duplicate votes (sometimes deliberately, but more often it's accidental and does not imply bad faith.). Additionally, some processes, such as RfA, do go by counting votes. An admin is supposed to be able to keep track, but in a complicated discussion this can help. DGG (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG - on the contrary, votes are used in certain situations. In such cases, this template is useful to prevent people being accidentally counted twice. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Utile. Collect (talk) 15:39, 27 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.

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) 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary. A talk page is a talk page. Moreover,

• delete Per nom's argument of redundancy. ThuranX (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy subst and delete per nom. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 21:48, 23 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.

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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IHS color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

And further I suggest deleting (to be implemented by redirecting) 3 other color templates among the types of NRHP sites listed with colors at wp:NRHP colors legend. The National Battlefield color (applies to 11 sites) can be used also for the 3 National Battlefield Park sites and for the 1 National Battlefield Site. And, the National Historical Park color (applies for 42 sites) can be used also for the one National Historical Reserve site. doncram (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think NMP color should be included with the National Battlefields as well. There's essentially no difference between a National Battlefield Park and a National Military Park. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at just one of the 9 NMPs, Vicksburg National Military Park, I see that it includes a national cemetery open from 1866 on, and a canal-digging site far from any main siege of Vicksburg battleground. Doesn't seem like it is just a battlefield. doncram (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the IHS color template doesn't need to be deleted outright, it can be eliminated by redirecting it to

wt:NRHP and thought it was possible that some would object to losing the several color templates, but it looks like this TFD is not going to get a lot of discussion, which is fine. Currently, there is consensus of two that IHS, NBP, NBS, NHR color templates can be redirected to NHS, NB, NB, NHP color templates respectively. doncram (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect per nom - no need for a template which is only used in a single article, but the history may be worth preserving. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 27 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.

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 speedy delete --Magioladitis (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South America box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated by

• Delete as creator. I made that in an aborted attempt to make an infobox continent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:29, 22 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.

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) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elfen Lied (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links four articles, which are already strongly interlinked. 「

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  Dinoguy1000) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• When I created the template there were several more articles, two have been deleted, two have been
  consensus is to delete, the the template be moved into my userspace (something like User:Guest9999/Elfen Lied) so that if the topic is expanded in the future it can easily be replaced and reused with history intact. Guest9999 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Certainly, that's no problem. 「
    Dinoguy1000) 19:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• A template isn't really needed for such a fairly standard suite of article + 3 summary splits for a franchise of this type. I'd be happier if the subarticles wikilinked to each other in a See also section, but given the primary navigation, between the main and subarticles, is solid, this nav template unnecessary. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenot really needed, doesn't add anyhting significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyRide (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed as articles have been streamlined. We merged Diclonius and Lucy/Nyu, as well as the song articles a while ago; I don't know why I didn't think to TfD this myself. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:19, 26 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.

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) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xcsd-a7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why do we need this template exactly? It doesn't seem very standard to me. It was created 2,5 years ago and remains unused. Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I certainly use it plenty. When I am patrolling the "pages for deletion" I often see pages where the Speedy criteria do not readily apply, and this template fits nicely underneath the "This page is nominated for speedy deletion" template. By its very nature has a short lifespan on any page, so it may not currently be linked to anything. (After using it I then notify the person who nom'd the article for speedy, and let them decide whether to go for AFD or to just remove the templates). As you can tell from its text, it is an admin tool and not intended to be used by the general WP editorship. Manning (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the action is loged in the log file and the article history. Why do we need a template for that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm... no. A decision to NOT delete a page otherwise nom'd for CSD is not recorded (as effectively my decision was to "do nothing"). Hence the template. Also it saves time for other admins who might be scanning the CSD candidate pages. (They can move on quickly rather than having to check the history page, or - worse - repeat an investigation of the entire issue). Manning (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why this template is specified only in A7 then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why an admin not just remove the tag and instead add one more tag? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I am thinking. It saves even more time for other admins just to remove the speedy deletion tag and, therefore, remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current wording of the template is a bit confusing: "speedy deletion ... has been overruled" suggests that the article was speedy deleted and then restored by an administrator. I think what is intended is "speedy deletion ... has been declined", which suggests than an administrator has review the speedy deletion request and decided to decline it. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now I know it is here I may use this template! It is a bit ironic viewing the template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely unnecessary. It does not make sense for an administrator to decline a speedy deletion by adding another tag to the article; he or she should simply remove the speedy deletion notice and note the reason in the edit summary. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - Per Black Falcon. Garion96 (talk) 09:55, 30 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.

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) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Related news  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A temporal template copying the the functionality of {{current}} and {{current related}}. As such, redundant. Not in use on any articles.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment looks like a section template, so perhaps a {{
  current section}} ) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral (as creator). This I guess is redundant to {{current related}}, but the difference is that it was intended as a very visible pointer rather than as a warning that the article might change. It wasn't meant to be a section template, it was just copying{{current sport-related}}, which at that time was also a small side-template. The problem with the {{current related}} template (or maybe others would characterize this as feature) is that it emphasizes the changes to the main article that are occurring. In many events, there won't be ginormous changes, just a line or two. (Think the reader who looks up fashion week because it's fashion week but really wants information on Fall 2008 fashion weeks. Basically nothing from the Fall 2008 article is going to go into the main fashion week article, but without a template like this they won't be able to find it.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the template is a solution looking for a problem. Less intrusive would be to inform the reader via a sentence that makes such a link, perhaps in the lede of the article, perhaps in a section describing such links.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with the less intrusive way as suggested by Yellowdesk. Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. We have a better template for that job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 30 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.

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. Garion96 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template, currently used only in various talk: and user: namespaces. Can be replaced in all instances with class="wikitable"
Note: I would also like to nominate {{Prettytable}} under the same criteria, but it is edit-protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - neither is used anymore, "wikitable" is the preferred template. - eo (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's right, see this, nobody is using it anymore. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all its transclusions have been substituted for class="wikitable" border="1", I don't know how this spanish template arrived here. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:59, 24 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.

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) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template, currently used only in various talk: and user: namespaces. Can be replaced in all instances with class="floatright wikitable" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and presumably not needed. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 27 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.

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) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template, currently used only in various talk: and user: namespaces. Can be replaced in all instances with {{

• Delete - entirely redundant to the second template. Robofish (talk) 01:14, 27 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.

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) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template, currently used only in various talk: and user: namespaces. Can be replaced in all instances with {{lang-fa}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obsolete and unused. Robofish (talk) 01:14, 27 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.

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 deleted G7 by User:Dank. JPG-GR (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see any reason this template should exist. If the Image:718smiley.svg is not a good name, it can just be renamed. Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It exists to make using the image slightly easier. But I created it before hearing of {{

(❝?!❞) 11:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• G7 per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:57, 21 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.

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) 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{

• Weak Keep - this template could perhaps be useful in certain circumstances (i.e. on the talkpages of templates about controversial topics). I don't really agree with the nominator that it assumes bad faith - presumably no one would add this to a talk page unless there was good reason to do so. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The very premise of this template is wrong/misleading. The description notes that the template "is a reminder not to discuss and edit war at length about the content of templates, but rather edit the article first". However, the talk page of a template is the most natural place to hold discussions about the content of the template, which for navboxes means discussions about what links to include and what links not to include. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:10, 28 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.

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:19 TV Productions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This would be better handled by a list. This is just a mess. No criteria for inclusion for one thing. And unwieldly. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - mainly because it's a very badly designed template. I wouldn't object to a better one (e.g. if it listed the shows horizontally rather than vertically, and if the names were links). Robofish (talk) 01:11, 27 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.

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costa Rica Squad 2005 UNCAF Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a navbox for national football team squad at a competition which is not a FIFA or Confederation championship.

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per prior consensus at
  WP:FOOTY. King of the North East 13:30, 21 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.

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 keep --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

• Keep it is useful to have a template to do this even if seldom used, as people would not know how to do this citation without help. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just bung it to {{cite web}} for the very few times when it is needed? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When we do cite it we should do it properly. It will additionally help to keep track of those articles where the groups are cited. DGG (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  Interactive Fiction, TADS) is primarily developed via the newsgroup rec.arts.int-fiction, and announcements about its development are made there. Certainly, I agree, there will be some incorrect uses of it, but to delete it purely on that basis just doesn't make any sense. Likewise, I think that replacing it with {{cite web}} would degrade the quality of the reference as (at least as far as I'm aware) {{cite web}} doesn't have any provision for newsgroup-linking. Jude (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep using cite web would promote usage of a particular Usenet access website. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usenet predates the web, and many of the protocols we use today were documented on Usenet. Sorry, not gonna cite any policy other than common sense, and point to
  Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak delete. Hammer is right, cite web is sufficient. Hammer is also formally wrong to the extent that the first line in WP:ELNO says "This guideline does not apply to inline citations". I believe that as long as there are no ethical/legal bars against inclusion (i.e. hate sites, copyvio sites etc.) then in the absence of anything better a newsgroup cite is ok.
  NVO (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Appears to be used, and like DGG said "When we do cite we should do it properly." Tiptoety ^talk 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Graeme Bartlett, Yngvarr and the nominator: Because usenet shouldn't be used often it is important to be able to locate the references to check them. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:25, 25 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.