Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8 edit

Template:Films of Ajith Kumar in 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 delete —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a draft of {{Footer Movies Ajith in 2006}}. --Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, orphaned as well. Hagerman^(talk) 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphan/test/not needed. Koweja 03:15, 14 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:Aotss 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 —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be nonsense, however it has some sense so I thought it best to list it here. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Appears that it used to be used on User:Attackoftheshow like the sandbox header to include content that won't be messed up by casual vandalism. No longer used, so delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphan now, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --Dgies
Delete, per above comments.
Delete nonsense. I would like to speedy it but it doesn't quite meet the criteria. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Scoutersig 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not needed. Koweja 03:15, 14 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:Auto Engineering 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 —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Rather than water down these lists as some of them are notable in at least one countries, this list should be deleted as it is NOT an advertisement for these companies. Garth Bader 20:26, 8 December 2006 (utc)[reply]

Delete Each of these subjects will have minimal interest to readers outside their home country, and having a temlate like this will just encourage vanity/advertising pages. --Dgies 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not because I particularly like this template, but because I'm not seeing a legitimate reason for deletion in your argument. This template isn't an ad, it's a navigation template for related articles. The articles themselves might be ad material, but that's got nothing to do with the template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In August there were 44 companies and 2 redlinks. There's now 101 with 43 redlinks. 57 additional links and 41 of them don't have an article to go to, which demonstrates User:Dgies prediction of encouraging vanity. Furthermore, it seems to be limited to engine tuning companies (as per Template talk:Auto Engineering, a suspension/handling company was removed), which doesn't match up with what the template's called. Finally, what's there isn't all that very related. Who needs to navigate from Ralliart to Rieger, for example? Japanese motorsport organisation to German bodykit company? Categorisation seems more appropriate. --DeLarge 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category is good enough. -- Mikeblas 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories (subcategories to keep it divided by country) would be perfectly fine. Koweja 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I have contributed to some of them, as the top one have said, deleting it is better than removing some of it, a category is what wikipedia needs. Willirennen 21:57, 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:Not in EB 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; closing early per author request. Opabinia regalis 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate for Wikipedia; it doesn't significantly add to our ability to create a free encyclopedia. I doubt that we need such a template on either the article or talk page of some 900,000 topics. --function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; pointless template. Noclip 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. As described on the Template page itself, its purpose is to assess the coverage of the Encyclopædia Britannica, not only in relation to Wikipedia but also with respect to other encyclopedias. I do not foresee that this Template will be attached to the thousands of fluffy Wikipedia articles (e.g., every Pokemon creature or episode of Friends), but rather to those articles that would be deemed significant gaps in encyclopedic coverage by an educated person. An example is sexual harassment, which the EB did not have as recently as 1994 (see Kenneth Kister's review). I am currently working on the Encyclopædia Britannica article with the intention of bringing it to FA status; this Template and the associated Category will help me address the EB coverage. Willow 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there are many more concepts in the EB than articles. Just because the EB has ~100,000 articles doesn't mean that it covers only that many concepts. Therefore, it's not a foregone conclusion that WP covers 15x as many (significant) concepts as does the EB. Please consider the size and density of the two-volume Index of the EB. However, I'll understand if the consensus is for delete. Willow 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't help build the encyclopedia, and is crass bragging if we put it on all 900,000-and-counting articles it could go. —CComMack (t–c) 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horrible, horrible idea. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irrelevant to Wikipedia- there are also so many articles on Wikipedia that would never be in Encyclopædia Britannica, therefore rendering this template a bit useless. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is utterly useless to note all the negations which are true of a particular subject. This is just one of the negations. It also looks too much like bragging "Wikipedia RULES!", which we aren't supposed to do in articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above †he Bread
Delete per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's bragging, and is a waste of editor time and Wikipedia's disk space to include it on every article not covered.CloudNine 12:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WTH?--A c1983fan 19:54, 9 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:Beta Theta Pi Chapters 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? —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not encyclopedic; rather it is a simple list. The list is almost completely redlinks, and even if they were all linked to pages, each page would be a stub (how much can you say about one chapter?). I nominate for deletion. Scoutersig 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates such as this are often used because they make it easier to serendipitously browse to a related topic. The list doesn't need to be encyclopedic, merely add to an article on an encyclopedic topic. That being said it may not be good practice to make a nav template that is 90% redlinks to topics likely to never become articles. I would support renaming to "Notable Beta Theta Pi Chapters" and removing all redlinked entries. --Dgies 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that; it would have the benefits of a template without all the redlinks. Scoutersig 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notable chapters idea sounds good, but how would we rate each chapter as notable? I can't imagine that there are enough chapters to be notable enough to make a template. Acidskater 08:29, 13 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:Sa, Template:Sb, Template:Sc and Template:Sq (and related categories) 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 —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Part of a rejected proposal to mark all our sources as "grade-a, grade-b and grade-c" with no objective criterion of the difference. This would simply give additional scope for edit warring about which sources are better than others. (Radiant) 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already rejected by way of the proposal, now orphans. --Dgies 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of dead proposal. Users grading them would be original research anyway. Koweja 03:07, 14 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:Pet Species 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 —Pilotguy (push to talk) 14:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The template is yet to be used on mainspace, and was moved from my sandbox by Dgies. I am currently waiting for comments over the template's usage on requested templates. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is it unencyclopedic to mention in an article that a species as kept as a pet? If not, why is unencyclopedic to categorize articles by that fact? Because that's all the template really is: a category with pretty formatting. I think it's a useful nav template for anyone researching the sorts of animals kept by humans as pets. The fact that this particular research topic may be of more interest to grade school students does not automatically make it unencyclopedic. --Dgies 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unencyclopedic to call a monkey a species, or an octopus a species, or a fish a species. These are not species. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means the template has a factual error in naming, not that is is unencyclopedic. Unencyclopedic would be a template of "Animals I like". --Dgies 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus isn't a species. Monkey isn't a species. Most of the items listed in the template are not species. Further, of the groups that are not species, are all of the species in that group kept as pets, or only some? As it stands, there is much more misinformation in this template that there is fact, and so it is unencyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't have an official definition of "unencyclopedic" on Wikipedia, the closest thing we have is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I don't believe needing renaming qualifies as a deletion critera, merely a place for improvement. --Dgies 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need renaming, it needs deletion. There is nothing that this article could be renamed to that would make it informative in any way. It adds no knowledge and it takes up screen space. My full argument is at the bottom of this discussion, I invite reply there. — coelacan talk — 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/reuserfy, it's original research to judge which species belong in the template, and what counts as a pet. We have Category:Domesticated animals, but determining which of those counts as a pet (some people have pigs) would just complicate things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't do the initial classification, but I've been trying to add only articles which mention the species is kept as a pet. Because templates don't generally have a reference section, applying the "OR" standard to the template itself in inappropriate I believe it is the claims in particular articles which should be judged. --Dgies 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd have less objection if it was rephrased to "Animals kept as pets," because that's really what it is, but then you run into the problem of people who happen to have exotic pets--do we count giraffes because of one guy with a personal zoo? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Animals kept as pets" and then only apply it to articles which state the animal is kept as a pet? Then if someone puts in something really exotic, it can be challenged with {{fact}} in that article. --Dgies 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good, as long as there's some standard--we can't be including every animal that some eccentric keeps around the house, and we need an objective way to keep out pet lovers who insist their favorite creature needs to be included. I'm not sure if even that can resolve size issues in a satisfactory way. We list numerous type of insects and mammals, why do fish only get one entry? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the above is taken into account †he Bread 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but change:

to animals kept as pets--
alphabetize in each row
move fish to their proper rank just below amphibians (I don;t know how to suggest details-- tropical fish? Goldfish? Siamese fighting fish? Piranas? do people keep other individual fish in appreciable numbers?

And Marine invertebrate (separate line after insects--these are the ones kept in salt water aquaria, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, or, since we have clams &c, it could be Echinoderms:, but that leaves out sponges and jellyfish: etc.
Worms??--people certainly raise them, usually annelids, but I do not know how they feel about them as individuals.

I think we can leave out plants for a separate template. DGG 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per suggestions I have changed heading, removed animals which do not assert pet-keeping in article, and alphabetized rows. --Dgies 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this template contributes no information to the articles which include it. If the template is only placed in articles that already specify an animal is kept as a pet, then the template is simply duplicating information. There's no need to waste screen space on duplicate information. This might be sane as a category, since those are so unobtrusive. But in this case it's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue. — coelacan talk — 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't your logic imply that all nav templates should be deleted? --Dgies 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, but the answer is no. Nav templates such as {{conservatism}} and {{Liberalism sidebar}} group many articles of a related topic. If I'm looking at open society, then it can be useful for me to see a template with a link to liberal democracy, as the concepts are intertwined and overlapping. There is an overall school of thought there, and each link in the template contributes to my understanding. There is no larger realm of thought represented by {{Pet Species}}. The reader already knows that people keep pets, and different kinds of pets at that. But by clicking on the different entries in this template, the reader learns nothing more about a larger topic. Thus this template serves no purpose that a category would not serve instead, and so it's cruft. — coelacan talk — 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic Whether an animal is kept as a pet says nothing about the animal; it is a facet of the keeper. Suppose I kept a crocodile, should it be added to the list? MikeHobday 16:52, 13 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.