Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 2

< April 1	April 3 >

April 2, 2006 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as the templates have been abandoned and requested for deletion by the original authors. Also strong consensus for deletion. — Omegatron 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rootpage edit

Can I point out, as the originator of these, that all the comments below are redundant, since these three templates are not currently part of the Wikipedia:Root page concept. It states there that they have been abandoned. They remain in use only because objectors refer to them! They could easily have been deleted after simply removing them, by me. This request confuses the real issue which is over 'branchlist' templates, elsewhere. --Lindosland 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stems from a fundamentally flawed perception of page management, attempts to create a pseudo-hierarchy similar to subpaging, which, I'm afraid, will be completely unworkable on a uncontrollably growing project of Wikipedia's stature. Kill it with a stick. — Apr. 2, '06 [23:37] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Delete them all. A root page is a just an article that leads to other articles, no need for a special label and added bureaucracy.--Commander Keane 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project at Wikipedia:Root page also seems to have abandoned these templates, see Wikipedia talk:Root page#Major Revision in the light of opposition. Kusma (討論) 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not hierarchical. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for now, bring back after proposal is defeated. There is still active discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Root page. I'm opposed to the idea, and agree with all the rationales given above for deletion, but I really don't think *fD should be used to abort a policy discussion in progress. Let the proposal die, and then delete the categories and templates related to it. --TreyHarris 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Its proponents don't care that it's unapproved. I have been removing these templates (either in transcluded or subst'ed form) from various "animation"-related articles on a weekly basis for some time now. I was going to delete the whole kit and caboodle under WP:SNOW but was advised to wait. I've waited, I've reverted the project's proliferation, I've brought it to TFD. What more do you want? — Apr. 3, '06 [19:29] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete, also per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: "[Article series boxes] often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, [...], or assert project proprietorship." The "Root page" project intends to assert some kind of project proprietorship over articles using the proposed templates: the articles that use these templates need to follow a special set of MoS instructions (that aren't in the MoS, but only in the "Root page" project description), etc... this is not remedied by calling the proposed templates "navigational templates" and not "series boxes" — I understand TreyHarris' concerns, and am opposed to approach guidelines with blunt XfD procedures myself (see comments in Village pump/policy); but the templates *as proposed* are in conflict with existing procedures and guidelines, so I've no problem to see them deleted, not giving false hope to the people involved in the "Root page" project. Related categories, and other templates connected to this project that try to assert project ownership should be deleted also ASAP as far as I'm concerned, and the project itself might benefit from a {{rejected}} or {{historical}} tag (this TfD page is however not the right place to discuss that). --Francis Schonken 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - The Root page project specifically says it is not about hierarchy. It does not seek to assert proprietorship. It says it is about providing a 'common introduction' and a 'base camp for coordinated editing' of large topics. Wikipedia Projects do the latter, but away from the pages concerned, often acting as a group of 'signed in' experts exerting proprietorship over topics. I am against the Projects for this reason, and suggest that Root page brings the discussions into the open, in a nominated place, where no one has to 'join up'.
Delete, if the proposal gets off the ground it can be recreated. Until then it should not exist, since it should never be used. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Deleting templates is a way of attacking the concept at its weakest point, since their organisation took a great deal of effort. The concept is under discussion, and that discussion should not be attacked at the templates. --Lindosland 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all of the "branchlist" templates: {{Branchlist/Electronics}}, {{Branchlist/Electronics/Analogue electronics}}, {{Branchlist/Electronics/Digital electronics}}, etc. (Or at least remove them from live articles.) This is feature creep, an attempt to make Wikipedia heirarchical and bring back Wikipedia:Subpages, and doesn't do anything that categories, normal navigational templates, See also sections, wikilinks, portals, wikiprojects, what links here, and list articles don't already do. Wikipedia:Root page should also be marked {{rejected}}. — Omegatron 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons --Mboverload 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, plus the fact that the proponents have abandoned these templates in favor of navigation boxes.--Srleffler 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 April 2006 (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 page.

Template:User gentoo 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete/redirect Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Template:User gentoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
The template is redundant with Template:User OS:Gentoo, which was created earlier. The new template's creator (Krakrjak, Talk) has been contacted by me, and agreed that it should be deleted. Capi 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is redundant. Krakrjak 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. —Cuivi é nen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:42 (UTC)
Speedy Delete CSD G7, (which tag I will add in the next few minutes). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2006 (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 page.

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. We can always rename it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User St Michaels VT edit

Assuming that VT means Vermont, I have just removed the ambiguity. Are there any other reasons to delete this? Kusma (討論) 02:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subsist maybe, then delete? Mike McGregor (Can) 13:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really see no reason to delete this one. Larix 14:56, 9 April 2006 (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 page.

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 consensus unclear and no apparent alternative proposed, kept Circeus 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Various artists album infobox edit

Template:Various artists album infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template is obsolete. It's only advantage over standard Template:Album infobox, which is recommended by WP:ALBUMS, is that it doesn't use artist chronology field. The Template:Album infobox was recently updated so this field is now optional. Template:Various artists album infobox is used in only few articles and it can be converted to the standard Template:Album infobox very easily. Jogers (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate template would allow differing default styling for various artists albums, and could automaticly add the albums to a various artists albums category. --Easyas12c 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These reasons don't seem to be strong enough to justify using separate template. I haven't noticed that the template automatically add the article to the Category:Various artists albums. Perhaps the Template:Album infobox could be modified to automatically add articles to the proper categories? What do you think? I've tried to modify it but it doesn't work. I don't have much experience with templates. If you have an idea how it could be accomplished feel free to try on my user page [1] Jogers (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, forking is evil. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:33, 3 April 2006 (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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox England traditional county edit

Template:Infobox England traditional county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is no such thing as a "traditional county" of England - it is purely subjective. This template is being used by members of two direct action pressure groups, County Watch and the grand-sounding "Association of British Counties" (sic) to utterly distort Wikipedia presentation of subdivision topics. Mais oui! 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There IS such a thing as a traditional county as the government have pointed out on numerous occasions. It doesn't suit your Scottish Nationalish PoV to accept this fact, so you are systematically trying to erase them from Wikipedia. You have no evidence that all editors are members of "direct-action pressure groups" - this is just spin to try and push your PoV. Please desist. Owain (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The proposer for this deletion has shown considerable bias in his edits on this subject. There are articles on and about traditional counties and hence this template is entirely consistent, NPOV and generally informative and relevant. In no way is this template 'distorting' anything, which is more than can be said for User:Mais oui!. Stringops 15:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for the same reason as the OP. This info should be merged into a new traditional county section of the main county infobox, rather than having a second infobox cluttering the county pages. In the case of traditional counties that have no administrative/ceremonial county, the template should be subst'ed, so that if neccesary they can be customised, like the main county infobox can. Joe D (t) 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As an example I have gone ahead and done this on Dorset. Joe D (t) 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly is the need to customise it? Surely it would be better to improve the existing infobox to meet whatever requirements are wanted than to lose all the flexibily of updating it gives by subst-ing everything into articles and then deleting it? Stringops 22:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What extra flexability is there in the template? If you want to add a new field to all articles you would have to edit every article anyway. If you wanted to add a new field to just a few articles, under my system you would have to only edit those articles, but under the template system you would additionally have to add new complicated (and resource using) code to the template to allow the new field to only show up on some articles.
      - I understand that's it's possible to code the template to perform simple operations depending on variables. I had a look into this and, not being well versed in it, resorted to changing all the articles individually, but I think it can be done by someone who knows what he's doing. Correct me if I'm wrong in this. Secondly, a well-thought out template with all the variables in place is better than individual, messy formating in every article. It simply needs careful consideration beforehand, and a single bout of changes. I ask again, what is lacking from this template that you'd like to see in it, subst-ed or not? Stringops 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe D (t) 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong deleteAs i have clearly demonstrated before Cornwall is more than just a traditional English County and is one good example that breaks this mould. We need a more open and general term, perhaps subdivisions.Bretagne 44 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as Joe D has said, templates are flexible. There is nothing to prevent Cornwall being described as a Duchy in this one. Furthermore, the bounds of the Duchy of Cornwall only fit with traditional counties, because the palatine borders were established long before any of the more recent changes affecting the counties. Stringops 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to say that I've modified the infobox so it can now refer to Cornwall (and Lancaster) as Duchies, hopefully alleviated the above (justified) complaint. Stringops 22:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid template. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template--and the concept it represents--are perfectly legitimate. MonMan 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it's legitimate. Septentrionalis 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not applicable to Kernow - Cornwall is a Duchy of course ! Aztecy 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm if you look at this infobox in the Cornwall article you'll see that it says Duchy of Cornwall... Stringops 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate concept. In England not everything has to be defined by legislation (though we are losing that desirable attribute nowadays). CalJW 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the relevance of a map of the whole of England on the "Cornwall" page ? Biwizz 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... maps show where things are in relation to where other things are. It's a diagramatic form of the sentence in the introduction that states the county's location. Do you not think it relevant to mention the location of the place you're describing in an encyclopedia? Joe D (t) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Why not have a map of Europe then ? Also Truro is a city - not as described in the info box as a "county town" Biwizz 06:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this appears to be the second attempt at voting from Biwizz, so only one of these votes should be counted. Stringops 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what a 'county town' is? There are plenty of county towns that are actually cities. This has no bearing on the legitimacy of this template. Owain (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it's an informal term it still has current usage. If I ask people in Bolton (or London for that matter) which county Bolton is in, the majority reply Lancashire. If I ask the same people about Truro, the majority say Cornwall. Although the first is incorrect from a current administrative perspective, and the second from a technical one, this is still the framework used by many people in England. This template satisfies the agreed naming conventions - it provides a mention of the traditional county in a secondary, less-prominent position than the current administrative county, and so it should stand. A q uilina 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's invaluable for illustrating the counties as they were before the reogranisation of the 1960s and '70s. JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the claim concerning sibjectvity is simply false, and other editors have pointed out the legitimacy of the concept. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please try to merge and scale down, people. This is causing clutter. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm no fan of traditional counties, but as they have a history and a current fanbase, they deserve to be featured in WP (in an NPOV manner, of course). As long as we have a set of articles on them, then this template does no harm SP-KP 22:26, 10 April 2006 (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 page.

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 subst and delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bjimg edit

And Substed. Septentrionalis 20:00, 3 April 2006 (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 page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikitheft edit

Delete for the reason stated by the nominator. Cedars 07:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikimoney is dead and the template clutters up the test template grid. Phr 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason stated by the nominator. --Mboverload 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:35, 8 April 2006 (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 page.