Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 20

< August 19	August 21 >

August 20 edit

Template:Australian Census Broad Groups 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion at Talk:Census in Australia, the template is not useful for understanding the census nor any other ABS publications. Ethnicity is not reported at the 1st level as indicated by the template - it is usually reported at the 3rd level for "Oceanian". The census results and other demographic information will not be / is not reported in a way that the template will help navigation or understanding. Arktos ^talk 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Arktos ^talk 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Chuq 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is useless in its present state, and likely to become misleading if cleaned up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better handled by appropriate text in relevant articles. -- Avenue 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template isn't likely to be used on many articles. An article or section about this classification scheme would be more appropriate. Jayvdb 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No use at all. JPD (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These classes don't represent the questions that were asked in the Census. Ga rr ie 04:52, 28 August 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:BravoFunny 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this template for deletion once before with a result of keep. Kelly Martin informs me that it is no longer used in any articles, and that the category has been deleted. I felt, and still feel, that this template is a useless waste, and I now feel it should be deleted quickly, if not speedily. Mysekurity 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The article has been deleted and this is no longer used. I would like to go further, though, and remove all references to this list - it has been subst'd into many of the film articles (eg. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (film), Three Amigos, Half Baked, to name the first three I checked). violet/riga (t) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Top # adjective movies/songs articles and associated listing templates, unless useful in some other way. And I don't think that this one would be useful in another way. Agreeing with User:violetriga that subst templates should be removed as well. - Jc37 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is unused. Sophy's Duckling 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But see no reason to go hunting down the text it represented; it remains true that the movies were on Bravo's list. The decision to include or not include this information in each movie's article should be left to the editors of each respective article. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point, but I don't think that there should be any references to such a pointless list. violet/riga (t) 13:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment had Kelly Martin, under the username NotACow, not subst this template in the articles with this template, it would still be in use. The purpose of the template was to make the information easy to find and move around the article. It was rightly kept in a previous TfD. It annoys me that a useful little template like this one, which keeps the articles grouped in a limited fashon has been under so many attacks. I watched that bloody countdown with adding it to the articles in mind. Do not think I enjoyed it since most of the films on that list I dislike. It was also to be a companion to another template I was thinking of creating which was BravoScary for Bravo's list of the 100 Scariest Movie Moments (which, I think, may have spawned at least 2 remakes of films on that list). Actually, this list is notable in the fact that so many disagree with it. I hate to use Google as a source, but if you do search for it on Google, you will find how widely it is dispised. That alone may merit an article on it. But, do as you will, it looks like I wasted 5 hours watching a countdown I didn't enjoy and made this template that is so hated by a few. I just don't understand the animosity towards this one, or is it me you are really after? - LA @ 08:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Normally, I think I would agree with you, but I've seen a couple of these now (including CfD) in which it was a question of {{copyvio}} (hence my vote above). IANAL, so I would be interested in finding out whether it is or isn't. ("It" being any top 10/100/500/etc list.) - Jc37 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, we cannot import these lists into Wikipedia without infringing on the copyright in the lists. That includes making them into categories -- which no doubt has been pointed out. We can, however, comment editorially that individual movies have appeared on one or another of these lists (which I suspect are published on Bravo's website, anyway). If you want to have an article about one of the lists, that's ok, just don't recreate the list itself. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that I will just have to chalk this up to 8-10 hours of wasted time, 5 hours watching the countdown, 3-5 hours on Wikipedia creating and fixing the template, adding it to articles, defending the category it once created in CfD (which I won't contest), and defending the list in AfD (also not contesting now). With it being subst in 98 articles in which it was included, who would go back and revert the subst now? I don't have the strength to do it all over again. So much for my good intentions. This is probably the biggest waste of time of mine on Wikipedia to date over a list with which I completely disagree. Ironic isn't it? - LA @ 10:34, 27 August 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:Copyvio1 and Template:Copyvio2 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 deletion of both. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were the previous way of labelling copyright violations, until they were replaced by the simpler {{copyvio}}. They are only very rarely used (as of writing, they are on 2 articles). It is a bad idea to keep obsolete templates like this, as the wording is not automatically kept in synch with the standard template. A previous deletion discussion was inconclusive. — sjorford ++ 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: "It is a bad idea to keep obsolete templates like this, as the wording is not automatically kept in synch with the standard template." - {{copyvio}} seems to be the result of merging these two templates. - Jc37 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need to be standardised for serious matters like copyright violations. Ansell 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete redundant. Sophy's Duckling 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the new copyright template is basically a merger of the other 2 nothing will be lost by deleting them. --Edgelord 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve in Wikipedia namespace as historical record. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst them on a subpage on your own userspace. Ga rr ie 04:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Ga rr ie 04:53, 28 August 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:Headermessage 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 userfied. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on the user and talk pages of an editor who hasnt edited since July 27 and has only about 10 contribs. And was the creator of the template. Delete. «ct» (tk|e) 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - to a subpage of the user:Headerfooter (talk) (Note:The contribs seem to be a result of this. However, there are some confusing (to me) messages on the user's talk page. - Jc37 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per jc37. And we also have section-stub.

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:Redlinks 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 deletion, and by the way, de-linking the template's 300 or so transclusions was really fun... RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another cleanup template, to be used by those too lazy to perform a very simple tasks. This one is especially irritating, because it reports of a problem where there is none. There is nothing wrong with redlinks, because they encourage the creation of new articles by those who wouldn't otherwise create them.

In any case, regardless of one's opinions on links to non-existant articles, this is just silly. It's such an obscenely minor problem (when it's actually a problem, anyway) that there needn't be an ugly template announcing it. --SB

Delete. Since when is too many red-links a cleanup problem? --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, trying to solve a non-problem. kate. 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bad way to solve a non-problem. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-problem. --Interiot 14:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn -- unneeded. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge ugly template about an issue which some users do not even think is an issue. At best could be kept as a talk page only template if it is trimmed down and the fact that it is not based on any policy is highlighted. Ansell 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep In my experience, it's worked. The best example that comes to mind is Howard Bloom, which had a lot of problems. Now most of the red links are gone or fixed, thanks in part to the template. Sophy's Duckling 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what would have stopped the person that put the template up from simply removing the redlinks themselves or fixing typos. I don't see why this is necessary because I doubt that anyone would be activally tring to preserve the links. so I see no reason for the warning. --Edgelord 05:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Edgelord 05:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text of the template suggests that it is used on pages that contain errors in format or spelling, leading to many redlinks. However, I first encountered on a page where all the redlinks exist because they point to articles that have yet to be created. As noted above, that's not a problem in need of cleanup. Eron 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mighty delete. I've seen nothing but the problems and misunderstandings arising from the use of this template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redlinks usually point to possible articles, and when they don't, it's very quick and easy to fix. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redlinks are useful for expanding the encyclopedia. Pages with many redlinks typically point to underdeveloped subject areas where the links shouldn't be removed. If redlinks come from typos, use some spellchecking template to alert people to it. Kusma (討論) 09:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template is used by people that don't want to check the spelling of red links or remove excessive ones (not the odd one or two) by themselves, so without a template to use they will have to do it by themselves. Matthuxtable 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The best way to get rid of redlinks is to create new articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not to be used lightly, like it commonly is, but it has its uses. I mainly use it for tagging new articles with a whole bunch of reds that look like they point to subjects that shouldn't have articles anyway, and so shouldn't be linked, but I don't have time to investigate or track the article and AFD the new articles if necessary. (|-- UlTiMuS 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First the redlink warning doesn't even mention that possibility. I also don't think it should be up to one user to decided what deserves to be an article or not. Finally, does this happen often enough to be necessary?--Edgelord 18:39, 26 August 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:Torah portion 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 keep or move. However, the template was speedy deleted. The discussion of this speedy deletion is now taking place on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 25. Please feel free to help build a consensus there. BigDT 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it as several people asked for a speedy restore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bible. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is not a Coffee lounge, chess board, or joke book either. If this template is useful to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and is being maintained, there is no need to delete it. BigDT 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it useful? Who chooses the quote? What purpose does it serve? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - KEEP!!! This is nescesary. It helps people who want to know this weeks Parshoh. Shaul avrom 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whats a parshoh? Who decides your parshoh ? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BigDT (I Strongly oppose userfying) - Jc37 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it would be really really nice if we could cut it down to a manageable size. Sophy's Duckling 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template could be used for Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Daniel's page ☎ 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace or portal namespace. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This template isn't used in articles or article discussion - it's only used on user pages and user talk, so it really doesn't belong in core template space, and it isn't an official Wikipedia publication, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia space. (Before I looked at the content, I expected it to be a template used for linking to a portion of the Torah, which is more the sort of thing that would belong in core template space.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me. Only should be used on user pages and user talk. It's actually transcluded into a few articles, but it really doesn't belong there; it's updated weekly, and article content shouldn't be constantly changing like that. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace or portalspace. The actual contents of the template are already in portalspace: Portal:Judaism/Weekly Torah portion. But this definately does not belong in the Main, Template ~~or Wikipedia~~ spaces because of its uses and nature. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would meet that requirement too. If this is moved to portalspace/projectspace, then the Signpost should be as well. jc37 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I would not have a problem with the Signpost being in portal or user space.
2. I also would not really object to this being in Wikipedia space, although it would not be my first choice (strikethrough above).
3. The signpost contains information potentially interesting to all Wikipedians, not only to Jewish wikipedians.
  1. In my opinion, whether all or some is irrelevant. A single template for use in 350 articles, is not useful for the over a million we have, but it still is considered useful. - Jc37 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Being consequent is not one of the goals of Wikipedia.
  1. No idea what you mean by this. - Jc37 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why wouldn't it do its job just as well in user/portal space?

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the same rules for the signpost as this, then I would agree : )

I think we agree that the Signpost qualifies as a "Wikiproject". (Which causes me to agree with most of your points above.) That said, many projects have templates in template space. I don't think descriminating where a wikiproject places its templates is a good idea. - Jc37 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to portalspace or projectspace per above. Kusma [User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as above. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, whats the concensus, Yea or Nea?? --Shaul avrom 23:17, 24 August 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:Infobox Professional wrestling announcers 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is redundant due to the usage of Template:Infobox Wrestler as nearly all professional wrestling announcers do more than simply announce. Lid 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been trying to make all the functions show up on the screen and have failed to do so. But this has been around for how long and you now are nominating it for deletion? Oh and not all announcers do more then announce. Examples: Tony Schiavane, Don West, Mike Tenay, Michael Cole, Joey Styles, Ed Whalen, Gordon Solie, etc.. Mr. C.C. 07:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been up for a long time, but I only found out about it today and a quick search showed it is a long orphaned template. --- Lid 09:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Bob 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very important to wrestling pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs)

Comment How? As stated other infoboxes are used and this one isn't used anywhere and serves no purpose. It's not even remotely important to the articles. --- Lid 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:13, 26 August 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:London railway stations 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 no consensus... discuss this elsewhere. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If implemented, this template would be too big to fit on any page. I created this so this is a nomination for deletion of my own template. This nomination does not also include the other template within this template - Template:LondonStations and also should not be confused with it. Simply south 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete {{db-author}} - Jc37 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not fit that criteria, the author did not request deletion. Ansell 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  - read above again: "I created this ...", and check page history? - Jc37 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry! my bad. Still dont think it is actually a speedy but I was wrong about that. Ansell 07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Split into smaller manageable templates. Perhaps by line/route or other similar criteria. Ansell 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Split per Ansell/Esperanza. Sophy's Duckling 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split into smaller manageable. Daniel's page ☎ 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A NSEW split would be artificial as there is no clear split between services. Split by zone would be illogical without including the tube stations, making it too large again. Split by line or operator would create multilple boxes at many stations, filling up just as much space. Mrsteviec 07:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was just trying to suggest an alternative to the current size. Did not realise how complex the London system was. Ansell 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G7. Perhaps a sensible replacement can be created at some point, but for now I see no reason not to respect the author's wishes and delete. --CComMack (t•c) 08:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mrsteviec: there isn't a sensible way to split this. --RFBailey 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is no clear way to split then maybe this is not a candidate for a template. Ansell 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mrsteviec. JPD (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed partically - Can't the template have the hide feature like the new zealand railways lines template. I don't understand the html that makes it work, but it looks very good. Pickle 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion, If the template was split into alphabetical sections with each section hidden by default but able to be shown individually then this would probably be a useful template. I don't know how to code this though. Thryduulf 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use categories. Pavel Vozenilek 22:07, 25 August 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.