Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

December 15 edit

Template:Project U.S. Roads/NC 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(Упражнение В!) 06:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The massive debate is over and the template is no longer needed to be in {{Project U.S. Roads}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It feels good to be shedding this template. =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. → JARED ^(t) 22:33, 17 December 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:energy 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very detailed template for order of magnitude comparison. May be replaced with a template which covers larger steps, i.e. 1-10, 11-10, 21-30 Inwind 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article. This template is very interesting and potentially very useful, but I think it is about 2 orders of magnitude too complicated to be treated as a template. --orlady 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's ones for mass and distance, etc. too. It's useful. → JARED ^(t) 22:34, 17 December 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:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Structure 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 template was deleted as requested by consensus of the members of the WikiProject — the only users to use this template. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This template was once an information box on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. The WikiProject page is currently being revised, and the template is no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 15 December 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 GA State Route 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(Упражнение В!) 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WT:GASH, all uses of this template have been replaced with {{Infobox road}}, making Infobox GA State Route redundant. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, per nom.

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:Dmoz 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is little use providing links to external web directories on articles, this template is therefore not useful and is skating very close to link spam. Peta 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many, many, other templates like this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the new Wikipedia:External links will encourage people to put their external links in web directories instead of Wikipedia. Having {{dmoz}} will greatly reduce the amount of spam we receive. Curiously (for me), out of the many, many templates similar to this one we have (I can think about {{Nintendo.com}}, {{GameFAQs}}, {{moby game}}, {{IMDB}}, and Category:External link templates in general) this is the most useful. -- ReyBrujo 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not spam. In fact, probably the best tool for combating spam here. It's a free, open-content, volunteer-edited directory. I don't see how it could be considered spam. (Disclosure: I am a dmoz editor.) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not spam at all, especially since guidelines tell people to use the ODP instead of creating pages/external links here. Koweja 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but take into account that i'm not an expert on templates. Someone recently added this dmoz template to an article I watch and I immediately thought it was a good idea. Having investigated the issue more, with the rewrites to WP:EL and such, I still think it is a good idea. WP is not a directory, but links to a directory like dmoz could solve a lot of problems. Wrs1864 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wrathchild and Koweja. -R. S. Shaw 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the one DMOZ link is an effective way of keeping out the link farm. I've used it several times to achieve pruning of link farms. Sandy (Talk) 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above "keep" comments. We should be encouraging its use! --A. B. ^(talk) 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by others. I recently added this template to a bunch of categories where I thought it could reduce a spam problem and/or could be a useful supplementary resource. (I must disclose that I am a dmoz editor.) --orlady 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - serves an useful purpose esp. as links are formatted consistently. Of course like other tags the existence of this tag is not an universal endorsement of linking - must always be a judgement call on whether the dmoz category in question has enough content - e.g. I would not add a link to http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Germany/States/Baden-W%c3%bcrttemberg/Localities/T%c3%bcbingen/ to the Tübingen article as the link to the 4-sites category would not add significant value. (Disclosure: I am a dmoz editor) Tschild 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep please. The TfD template being displayed on articles is to the detriment of Wikipedia's image. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be useful. - Deathrocker 13:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a great tool for all to use, I don't see any reason why is it linked to spam. Simple reasoning, if there weren't for this Dmoz in most External Links, people will just simply dunk every link into every article's External Links. I had enough of that problem in many articles. Like someone above said, this Dmoz does really have an effect on Spam Reduction. I Stroungly agree to everyone's opinion of keeping it, I find no fault, nor fraud in it. Same analogy, if there weren't sign boards on highways, people will just simply drive and lead to their destination to nowhere.Someformofhuman 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably one of the best link spam deterents, as others above have noted. Putting this as well as "NoMoreLinks" template in External links that references dmoz has really helped discourage spam on some articles. Calltech 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very useful when pruning external links sections that are becoming long lists. FreplySpang 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is used on nearly 1000 articles. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep This template keeps a lot of trash external links off Wikipedia. Roguegeek (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty much per all of the above - one of the best tools for combating linkspam. I encourage the nom. to review WikiProject Spam to see how useful this tool is in the fight against spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep - for the reasons listed above. Speedy since it is currently malforming around 1000 articles with the TFD notice. Kuru ^talk 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the deletion template to the template's talk page for now. I have no particular opinion on whether or not this should be kept. (Radiant) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Dropped the speedy off. Kuru ^talk 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 20 Keep !votes in one day, so Speedy Keep, please. --Conti|✉ 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we can easily consider this a consensus, so please change back. Roguegeek (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is no longer marked as a candidate for deletion. (This has been true for several days, AFAICT.) Does that mean that this discussion should be closed with a conclusion of "Keep"? --orlady 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is tagged, actually. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:16, 21 December 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:USFBullsCoach 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous template. I can understand having football coach templates for teams with more illustrious football histories, but the University of South Florida has only had a football team for 10 years, and only one head coach (you can see his name is the only one in the template). Delete. --Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is absolutely no use to navigation templates with one name. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. One of the stated goals of the project was to create a set of standardized templates for coaches, teams, etc. Please see chart for complete list of 1A. FIU also only has one coach listed but will be getting a new coach in the next couple of weeks or months. 09er 13:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments of 09er. --Tlmclain | Talk 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an unusual case because it contains only one entry, but it does complete the series of standardized templates created by the associated WikiProject. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 09er. --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep. This is more than a navigational tool, it's information. It's impressive to see a school with one coach for the history of the school, compared to others than have had 50 in 100 years and then there are some with 13 for 100+ years. There is a school that had one coach, but they just fired him and now there will be two on the template. It is definite that they will have another head coach at this school and the template will already be there, instead of needing to recreate the identical material. Eventualism should take precedent here. --MECU≈talk 17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep? This is not a bad faith nomination. I don't think "speedy" is in order here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was bad faith. --MECU≈talk 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't, WP:SK doesn't cover it. -Amarkov

^blah_edits 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "Bad faith" anywhere on that page. I even searched. However, this doesn't meet speedy keep since there was another delete vote other than the nominator. I have changed my recommendation accordingly. --MECU≈talk 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. VegaDark 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as also stated by Mecu. CJC47 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johntex. Joe 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know it doesn't make sense, but we had the same problem in the Olympics context. → JARED ^(t) 22:37, 17 December 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.