Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2, 2006 edit

Template:Wikipedia Tutorial 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. Pagra shtak 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Template:Wikipedia Tutorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Unnecessary duplicate of {{tutorial}} ~~{{RPA}}~~ created by an inexperienced user [is not a personal attack; it is a statement to give context to the discussion]. Quiddity 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC) (i'm replacing the falsely RPA'd comments at 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think you were using "inexperienced user" as a name to call me, whether you did it on purpose or not. It's not a valid reason to not like the template. It is not a reason why the template is not needed.--Chuck Marean 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~{{RPA}}~~ per nom. Joe 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no idea what part of my comment could be construed to be a personal attack; I imagine that Chuck, believing inexperienced user to be a personal attack, means to upbraid me for concurring in Quiddity's assessment. Even as I am inclined to agree with Quiddity's comment (which surely isn't a personal attack), it should be observed that when one "votes" per nom, he/she is generally endorsing the underlying reasoning and not necessarily the fashion in which a nom is made (again, though, I can't apprehend any malignancy in Quiddity's nom). Joe 04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he added inexperienced user that made it sound like you were name-calling. Per nom, whatever it means, sounds like you were agreeing with all of his reasoning.--Chuck Marean 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see that inexperienced user need be understood to have any pejorative connotation; rather, I think Quiddity used it to differentiate between your good faith edits and those that might be made intentionally to disrupt (namely, by a longtime user). Joe 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, making Help:Editing worse is no plan. -- Omniplex 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template wasn't making it worse, it was giving it a link to the tutorial that didn't say it was part of the tutorial--Chuck Marean 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody added stuff into my signed statement, I've removed it. -- Omniplex 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It includes a link to the Introduction, which is really part of the Tutorial. Also, it's good for use on pages that are not the tutorial itself whose readers should know about the Tutorial. It could also be used in the tutorial, since it includes the Introduction.--Chuck Marean 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Templates should not be forked (split into divergent variations). If you feel the original template is flawed, fix it, don't fork it. However, as we've mentioned on your talk page in the past, please propose significant changes on the talk page of any template or major wiki-space page, first. -Quiddity 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like other comments you have made trying to boss me around. I don't need your permission, and neither does anybody else. --Chuck Marean 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not really bossing to ask one to comport his/her editing with extant policies and guidelines that reflect the considered judgment of most project participants, or, at the very least, having been gently rebuked by several other editors, to discuss edits prior to implementing them. I am all for one's being bold, but, at the end of the day, each of us requires the community's participation to continue here; where it is the consensus of the community that an editor is doing more harm than good to the project and is altogether recalcitrant in the face of repeated entreaties, an editor likely will be asked by the community to leave. In any case, this discussion really isn't TfD-related, and so I'll not extend it further. Joe 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused duplicate template. CG 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think whichever template is used should include the introduction.--Chuck Marean 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Poetlister 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avogadro 16:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gareth Aus 04:06, 8 July 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:Cfmf 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.

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. --William Allen Simpson 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, maybe Xaosflux confused it with another template, this belongs to your "unused cruft" set below. -- Omniplex 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and it certainly has been discussed and requested on the CfD discussion page: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_2, Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion/Archive_4. At any rate, discussion should take place on the CfD discussion page before any deletion here takes place. It's also an appropriate counterpart to the article template:mergefrom, and informative. Ccccccccccc 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it should be noted that CfD process is under review at: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Clearer nomination process at the behest of the nominator, and it appears as though there is a need for this template anyway, since he is discussing the incorrect use of template:mergefrom in categoryspace. Ccccccccccc 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- note to closer, the above badly named poster apparently is unfamiliar with the existing process, and {{cfdnotice}}. Also, {{mergefrom}} clearly indicates that it should never be used in Category space. --William Allen Simpson 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May be of use - let's wait before deletion.--Poetlister 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it hasn't been used in a year, since its creation by an IP user, I'm pretty sure no more waiting is required! --William Allen Simpson 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't see any (recent) involvement in TfD by Ccccccccccc (talk · contribs), so this may be pride of authorship, with great similarity to the edits by 132.205.15.43 (talk · contribs), 132.205.95.65 (talk · contribs), and 132.205.44.134 (talk · contribs) (the author of oldcfdN below). Also, they seem to edit the same articles at about the same time. --William Allen Simpson 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not I, it's my friend, who hates accounts, and we do edit the same articles, more or less, since we have the same interests, and we're in class at the same time, sometimes, so we use the computers to do something during boring lectures. Ccccccccccc 11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - template:cfdnotice does not have the same fuction as this template. So from what you are saying, all we need do is document it, or put it up for discussion at CfD... which is what is happening now. Ccccccccccc 11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. the wub "?!" 11:31, 4 July 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:Oldcfd 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. Pagra shtak 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. --William Allen Simpson 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- Omniplex 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides useful information, and is used. If it's in the incorrect format, that can be fixed. And we definitely need a counterpart to template:oldafd for CfDs. Ccccccccccc 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- note to closer, the above badly named poster apparently is unfamiliar with the existing process, and {{cfdend}}. --William Allen Simpson 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This may appear unused, because it is often subst'd. This is the compliment to {{oldafd}} and {{oldmfd}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC) See below.[reply]
Redirect if feasable. The closure process seems to be having some process keep; oldXfd was simple. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As to {{oldafd}}, that was replaced by {{oldafdfull}} many months ago (2005-09-02). See Wikipedia:Deletion process.
- Likewise, {{oldcfd}} was replaced by {{cfdend}} (2005-10-14), and {{tfd-kept}} by {{tfdend}} (2006-03-31).
  --William Allen Simpson 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{cfdend}}, since this could accidentally be used by users more accustomed to closing AFDs. the wub "?!" 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be helpful, but what caused the fork in the first place, oldxfd seems to be pretty standardized, was cfdend foked over updating oldcfd? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because:
The format and parameters changed.

Only MfD still uses {{oldmfd}}.

A redirect would be a bad idea, although it may not seem superficially to matter, as the old ones were subst'd. That's no longer the accepted practice. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Removing SUBST instruction for result templates.
Just kill it.
--William Allen Simpson 22:35, 4 July 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:Oldcfd2 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. Pagra shtak 02:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. --William Allen Simpson 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, cruft. -- Omniplex 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides useful information. If it's in the incorrect format, that can be fixed. And we definitely need a counterpart to template:oldafd for CfDs. Ccccccccccc 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- note to closer, the above badly named poster apparently is unfamiliar with the existing process, and {{cfdend}}. --William Allen Simpson 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. the wub "?!" 11:31, 4 July 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:Orphaned unfree replaced 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. Pagra shtak 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Its category was deleted, it doesn't seem to be used anymore. --William Allen Simpson 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the other (= redirected to) I5 template will do. -- Omniplex 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant --Poetlister 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please update the WP:CSD page so it doesn't list any tags we're not supposed to use. I used this because it was on the page. --Rob 16:21, 6 July 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:Age 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 to delete. Pagra shtak 01:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A template which automatically calculates a person's age, apparently created for use in infoboxes. Absolutely useless; if a person can't do simple arithmetic, then why (and how) are they reading Wikipedia articles? FuriousFreddy 07:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I certainly concur in Freddy's reasoning, but the template is useful inasmuch as age is updated automatically; it is not the intellectual infirmity or dyscalculia of other editors about which I am concerned, but, instead, the frequency with which articles that include temporal information aren't updated, if only because it is rather easy to overlook small details (to be sure, an age given in an infobox is considerably more evident than one in article text, but I think oversight is nevertheless possible). Joe 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: A very useful template, especially for articles that aren't monitored or updated on a daily basis. -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I don't see much firm validity in FuriousFreddy's argument, why not make it easy? People don't come to Wikipedia to do arithmetic, and the template does certainly serve a role. Orabomb 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want to do math when I don't have to. --Nelson Ricardo 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template survived a TfD on April 22 (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_22#Template:Age), and not much has changed since then (apart from the ages of some people). Even if this were a first nomination, I'd still vote keep because it is potentially useful and not causing any harm. --ais523 14:27, 3 July 2006 (U T C)
Keep I'm a professional statistician and I know how people make mistakes if things aren't automated.--Poetlister 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Forbid articles or infoboxes from ever writing the current age of someone. As almost all of the instances of this template are inside "Infobox musical artist" or the like, which currently does not display the age, this template is being used very little. In general I don't think that an encyclopedic article, which in theory should last a long time, should ever state a person age explicitly. Remember some day Wikipedia may be printed - and it would not make sense to state a person's age. The objections above of "I know how people can make mistakes" and "let's make it easy" would make sense if this template was used - which it isn't and shouldn’t be. The objects in the previous TfD also failed to realize that while it is nice to automate this function, they didn’t consider that this function shouldn’t be needed in the first place. Jon513 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, I agree entirely with Jon, but, as those in the previous TfD, I took as axiomatic that the community approved of the provision of an age, for example, in articles. Jon's analysis is almost exactly that which I'd have given, and I'd certainly support deletion if I didn't believe a consensus for the provision of an age to exist; here, though, I think it only appropriate that we assess the usefulness and propriety of the template for its stated purpose, assuming arguendo that that purpose is encyclopedic (with the imprimatur of the community). The discussion with respect to such issues as Jon raises likely ought to take place on a more general level and at a page to which more editors are likely to come; in such a discussion, I'd certainly agree most stridently with Jon. Joe 16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this discussion should continue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#age. Jon513 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We could all live without it, but what is it hurting? Kafziel 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only hurts if someone uses it. Jon513 13:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Buchanan Hermit's reasoning. Kevin_b_er 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't bloody matter if people can't do simple arithmetic. Sometimes, if you are in a hurry maybe you don't want to thik that if this page/user was last edited/born on, January 28th 2005, not everyone wants to sit and think, "hm, when was this last edited?" and whatnot. I agree with Orabomb, and what he said:

People don't come to Wikipedia to do arithmetic

And that is correct. They come to edit. Book s worm Talk to me! 10:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... restrict from uses such as "age" fields in infoboxes. My reasons are (a) ages have a tendency to change every year or so, making print versions awkward, and (b) I'm sure people who read articles can do simple arithmetic. The template does have some use, such as for userpages where people write stuff like, "Hi! I'm a x-years-old college student..."--Fallout boy 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't see any problem from keeping this template. It's not bad, and could be usefull for lots of articles! I'd say we keep it! --Jort227 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, this shouldn't be used. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia ... what good is it when the printed edition finally comes around, you buy the book, and you're reading it a few years from now and it's woefully out of date? We shouldn't be in the habit of listing someone's current age, only the date of birth. This template gives a quality of temporal immediacy that is out of place in a proper encyclopedia. --Cyde↔Weys 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia isn't a paper encylopedia!

Keep I think it doesn't do any harm, and is a nice convenience. --Rob 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like to have idiot proof math done for me when I'm feeling to stupid to do it myself -- Tawker 07:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above.
Delete or at least keep out of article space. Because age shouldn't be mentioned as a dynamic. It also creates a problem for after the subject is dead... gren グレン 02:35, 10 July 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.