Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14, 2006 edit

Various aircraft templates 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, which is safe because the templates are unused. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the introduction of Template:Milair ntd, the following templates are now obsolete. All have been properly depopulated. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - replacing these templates with a meta-template monstrosity makes category maintenance much more difficult. There is probably a better solution, but this schema is not it. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can it make category maintenance more difficult? With some very minor exceptions, it simplifies the unified nav scheme immensely. Also, unless a workable alternative has been put forward, the fact that alternatives might exist shouldn't prevent the deletion of a set of templates that are, no matter how you slice it, obsolete. Furthermore, consider the questions asked at the now deleted 'Avoid Using Dynamic Templates' page. Question 1, are there some effects that can be achieved only by using conditional parametres: yes, the categorisation of aircraft types whose {{{type}}} includes the word 'military'. Question #2: it is entirely possible that editors, even if they understand how the system works, may not bother to transfer updates from one template to the other eleven.

Furthermore, Brion has made it very clear that logic templates do not hurt the servers and are acceptable where necessary; in this case, using {{qif}} is a definitely preferrable alternative to the twelve different templates we would require as an alternative. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this aircraft category schema is totally convoluted and dissimilar to other "by decade" categories in that it uses "1980-1989" instead of "1980s" (see Category:1980s). I'm actually unconvinced that the "by year" categorization is of any real value for aircrafts. Inevitably, after drilling down about ten levels from Category:Aircraft, you get to places like Category:Soviet and Russian civil utility aircraft 1990-1999, which is grossly under-populated. Wouldn't the historical perspective be better served in a "Timeline of Soviet and Russian civil utility aircraft" list? Or maybe just make use of the existing Timeline of aviation series? -- Netoholic @ 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this may be true, but how does not deleting the old templates solve those problems? Ingoolemo ^talk 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since they are all depopulated. --BWD^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BWD --LaRsInIo^msg ^© 21:16, 16 March 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:Webgame 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A web game should be notable and verifiable regardless of the number of other wikipedia articles that link to it. Thatcher131 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MiraLuka 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? I love the idea of a template that warns you not to delete the article, yet starts out by informing you that some people consider it non-noteworthy. Pagra shtak 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Wh e re ^(talk) 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pagrashtak --Larsinio 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If so, marking it for deletion over noteworthiness may hurt the linking article." Not really. However, marking this template for deletion may improve Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is nonsensical. —optikos 23:00, 19 March 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:Port Washington Branch link 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Port Washington Branch link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I suggest this template be deleted. This template contains only a single wikilink to a non-existent article (Port Washington Branch, which, while it doesn't exist now, could validly be created). The linked page is only linked to be three other pages (excluding the template page and the "Templates with red links" page) and is not included in any pages. The template was created in November 2005, so it doesn't appear to be a "new and unused" template. It is unlikely to see any use in the future, as the template name is longer than the article to which it links. LrdChaos 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy if possible (original creator) Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per empty garbage --Larsinio 21:12, 16 March 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:Sail Types 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ugly, and too large for many of the pages it appears on. See block (sailing) for an example.
It is unnecessary - templates were a navigation mechanism used before categories became available. The category Sailing vessels and rigging does the same job as this template in a much more comprehensive and unobtrusive way. It may not be perfect at the moment, but it's more suited to the task than this template and thus has more potential for improvement.
Its contents are incomplete and somewhat arbitrary. Clearly it cannot contain links to every sail-related article, or it would become even more bloated than it is now. Given that, the selection of articles that do belong in it will always pose a problem.

Finally, I'd like to explain the apparent abruptness of this nomination. Usually I'd expect to discuss any deletion on the relevant talk page before nominating, but I doubt that many people read template talk pages. Having the nomination notice at the top of the template gets the message out to interested editors wherever the template is used. We can then have the discussion here. PeteVerdon 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{otherarticles}} using Sailing vessels and rigging. Septentrionalis 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an improvement, but I still don't see why the template is necessary at all given the existing Category. Have a look at The Meadows, for example - the template box pretty much duplicates the category line below it, except that it also inserts an ugly purple box into the article. PeteVerdon 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's a useful link to the various types of sails used. If it's incomplete it can be completed. If it's ugly it can be improved. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were "completed" it would logically have to be as big as the category, which on my not-exactly-tiny display fills more than one page. You're suggesting that should be tagged on the end of every sailing article? As for ugliness, that is due to its size overwhelming the articles it's placed in, not its design, so isn't really something that can be improved. PeteVerdon 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's really not that big, and to me it's much more user-friendly than the category page. Ardric47 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up Templates=good bc one click is better than two clicks. This tempalte is fully relevate to the subject matter. It could be made smaller however --Larsinio 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider vertically-denser formatting —optikos 22:57, 19 March 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:Subs:archivebox 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:38, 23 March 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:Dontdelete 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 speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Made by vandal to protect his vanity page. --Golbez 04:43, 14 March 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:Legal status of Hawaii 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 merge into legal status of Hawaii and delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legal status of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template, while containing useful information, is considerably oversized. I recommend substing the template into the article Legal status of Hawaii and adding links to that article in the other articles that use it, if they don't already have them. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{otherarticles}} Septentrionalis 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is the majority of the article and presented in an interesting way. It needs to be moved to the article before it's deleted. SchmuckyTheCat 16:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to article, perhaps as a table in the same format. —optikos 22:55, 19 March 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.