Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8 edit

Template:Infobox UK N-Ireland 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant... Use now Template:Infobox Country. Guilherme Paula 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - covered perfectly well by country infobox. Gracenotes ^T § 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can we just get CSD T2 (or CSD T3 if you want CSD T2 to be historical) to speedy delete all redundant infoboxen? Please? --Iamunknown 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod, but that sort of fizzled out. Gracenotes ^T § 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I fizzled out before I even got there, which was like three days after it started. :-( --Iamunknown 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy criteria for obviously redundant templates is a real good idea, in fact. It would save time and space here at TfD. (Alternately, CSD G6 sort-of applies.) Why not raise it on WT:CSD? Picaroon 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant template. Picaroon 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 01:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. —dima /talk/ 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Template:Infobox Country. Kyra_~(talk) 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Redundant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. beano 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Template is involved in a content Dispute on the Northern Ireland page, the dispute is over the use of the Ulster Banner flag, which has had no Legal status under current laws since 1972/3, and cannot be used in Northern Ireland on Government Buildings. So deleteing this template now would only restart a edit war if the Template:Infobox Country is used in its place.--padraig3uk 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've added a parameter to {{Infobox Country}}, text_flag, that allows for text instead of an image of a flag. Gracenotes ^T § 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay decision until NI flag issue resolved {per above) 86.12.249.63 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay deletion per Padraig. Bl a st 14.04.07 0425 (UTC)

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 section.

Template:Scenes From A Movie 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template used in an now-speedy deleted eponymous article. Of no use to other articles and, if the article is recreated, could simply be replaced by the code [[Scenes From A Movie]] --Iamunknown 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... I mean, it arguably is the most useful template to ever appear on Wikipedia, but my reasons for deletion are personal. Gracenotes ^T § 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; err... the template looks like it is transcluding itself? If the purpose of the template was to enable categories to be put into the article, wouldn't it be more efficient to put the categories at the bottom of the page as usual? Other than that, the page was deleted, as the nom said, so I think it can be safely deleted; if the page is recreated, the categories can be placed in their normal location. Kyra_~(talk) 03:10, 9 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Season 1 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 as unused and redundant.Yannismarou 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are redundant. There is already a template that lists all of the episodes in SpongeBob SquarePants and that is Template:Infobox SpongeBob episode.Squirepants101 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/redundant. –Pomte 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with nav box A new name that makes sense, like SpongeBob SquarePants season 1. Is it possible to move (to keep the edit history, and then delete the redirect? Btw, here is a convenient link for everyone: All templates that starts with "Season". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (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 section.

Kentucky route infoboxes 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated, superseded by {{Infobox road}}. {{RouteboxKY2}} is a redirect to "RouteboxKY" and should be deleted as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated, orphaned templates. Go team! -- NORTH ^talk 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^What they said -- master_son^Talk^- ^Edits 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the templates in question being superseded, or in the case of the template that is a redirect, a redirect to a superseded template. Kyra_~(talk) 03:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:00, 12 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:noncompliant 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 deprecate; the template should be deleted once transclusions to it are corrected. {{disputed}} and {{POV}} are the most likely replacements to use, but the replacement cannot be automated due to the nature of the template. --ais523 15:41, 16 April 2007 (U T C)

This template introduces misunderstandings. Somebody puts and later defends the template on the basis of the single reason (usually POV), but the template forces others to think that the article has all four problems listed. I suggest to leave one reson per template. If the article does have multiple problems, several templates can be used. As the "combined" templates are heavily used, I do not suggest to remove them immediately, but just mark as deprecated and no longer recommended. Audriusa 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Mark as depreciated. Way too broad. Agree with nom that this would lead to misunderstandings. I also don't like the use of the stop hand for something which could be majorly problematic in the article or relatively minor. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tags giving specific problems with the article are fine. Tags which say only that there exists a problem are not. -Amarkov moo! 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For clarity, use the specific templates instead. We're working on a template, {{Articleissues}}, that specifies all the relevant issues in one box to save space. –Pomte 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specific templates are a better choice --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:27, 12 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox England 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. --ais523 15:31, 16 April 2007 (U T C)

Defased and no more necessary. Use now Template:Infobox Country. — Guilherme Paula 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - while I won't try to imagine what "defased" means, I agree that this template is not needed. It is transcluded nowhere, not even on England - the country infobox is used there. Gracenotes ^T § 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. It seems the issue was regarding the patron saint field. –Pomte 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Template:Infobox Country. Kyra_~(talk) 07:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, no reason to keep. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —MJCdetroit 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Redundant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:09, 9 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox UK nation 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Template:Infobox Country do the same thing. I edited the Country template to include saint patrol in table. — Guilherme Paula 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used anywhere; covered perfectly well with Template:Infobox Country. Gracenotes ^T § 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant; all the fields in this template are contained within Template:Infobox Country, which seems to work rather well. Kyra_~(talk) 07:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, no reason to keep. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —MJCdetroit 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Redundant. Why do people copy and paste code instead of making the original one better. Uh! I hate it! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:09, 9 April 2007 (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 section.

Geographical navigation 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 partial delete. The consensus is that the following are kept as clearly defined bodies of water: {{Persian Gulf}}, {{Caspian Sea}}, {{Red Sea}} and {{Black Sea}}. feydey 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Philippine Sea}}
{{South Atlantic Ocean}}
{{South Pacific Ocean}}
{{East China Sea}}
{{Persian Gulf}}
{{Caspian Sea}}
{{Arabian Sea}}
{{Celebes Sea}}
{{Red Sea}}
{{South China Sea}}
{{Andaman Sea}}
{{Black Sea}}
{{Countries and territories bordering the Norwegian-Greenland-Barents Sea}}
{{Countries and territories bordering the North Sea}}
{{North Pacific Ocean}}
{{North Atlantic Ocean}}
{{Countries bordering the Adriatic Sea}}
{{Countries bordering the Sea of Japan and/or the Yellow Sea}}

This is a bulk nomination of several geographical navigation templates which I think aren't helpful, clutter the bottom of articles, and are largely arbitrary. By largely arbitraty, sea {{South Atlantic Ocean}}. Congo has nothing to do with St Helena, which has nothing to do with Brazil. Note that I'm not nominating all of them; I'm just nominating the ones which are subsections of oceans. Whole continents and oceans are reasonable templates to have, but seas and halves of oceans aren't; there are just too many possibilities, and for every one of these an article has, it looks a little bit sillier. Deletion is needed before another twenty pop up. Picaroon 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that some of them aren't even included where they should be, so if you're thinking "oh, the country articles aren't that bad," they could get worse. Picaroon 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was wondering about these myself, thanks for digging them up. Grouping the smaller seas isn't exactly arbitrary, but this would be an example of overtemplification. It is questionable how useful it is to navigate to articles about countries around a specific sea or across a specific ocean. Countries that are within geographical proximity, and hence have more relation, they already link to each other within their articles. These are most useful in the sea articles, but then they become single-use. –Pomte 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't exactly been relishing the prospect of aligning flags etc in these, so don't mind if they are removed. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Useful as a cross reference. We should check the templates to see which countries should and should not be included. - Nick C 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are they useful? We already have articles on the specific bodies of water; they say what country borders it, and where. These don't even say where (and would be huge if they did). We're not deleting the information, we're just removing it from places it doesn't belong. Picaroon 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Speedily! No use! Lear 21 14:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: per Nick C. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to him; please consider what I said. Thanks, Picaroon 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful as a navigation aid. Problems are simply editorial and stylistic. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, those templates whose names don't begin with "Countries" are on my to-look-at list. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A 'navigational aid'? Ha, ha. Nice pun. Merbabu 13:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, which are clearly defined, such as the Black Sea, Red Sea and Caspian Sea - useful for navigaion. Delete ill-defined parts of oceans like South Atlantic Ocean. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some as above Nach0king 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I kind of agree with Pomte. It's clutter. My vote is weak because I didn't go thru all of them and not sure if there's a special case where it is actually useful. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not very useful. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- most country articles do list which sea(s) they border etc, and I feel that these templates clutter up the bottom of some articles. Thunderwing 09:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the Seas (Persian Gulf and Caspian Seas for Example) --Arad 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary clutter. --Victor12 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clutter. --sony-youth^talk 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. Some are useful enough to stand alone. Others that contain a small amount of countries should be merged with others, so we don't have so much clutter and templates.--Canadianshoper 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They serve no practical purpose. The Behnam 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, as Ynhockey proposed. Aaker 10:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Petri Krohn 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless templates. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless clutter. (Caniago 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - very arbitary. My guess is someone really wanted to do templates, but the fact that all the useful ones had been done didn't stop them. Of no practical use. Merbabu 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Navigation templates are a waste of space. --Wang C-H 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I think this has been recreated so many times. I remember one deletion here: Template:Tasman Sea and also others I believe. Can't we have guidelines of geographical navigational templates in order to avoid the same problem again and again? I found there is another one here: Template:Asian capitals which serves no purpose but to clutter the articles. — Indon (reply) — 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or most Too bad this is an umbrella nom because one or two might be usable. I'm so sick of template clutter though. If you've got a favorite in here, make the case to me and I'll amend my comment. SchmuckyTheCat 03:17, 19 April 2007 (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 section.