Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 23

< August 22	August 24 >

August 23 edit

Template:Rename image 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 redirect to Template:Ifr. IronGargoyle 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redundant~~ Redirect to {{ifr}}. — Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect replaceable by {{ifr}}. Carlosguitar 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect redundant, but "Rename image" is a easier name than "ifr". - Koweja 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Koweja above. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, redirecting makes more sense. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content into one template, and keep as a redirect because of the easier name. — Omegatron 04:32, 27 August 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:SI multiples 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. IronGargoyle 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds redundant information to articles that can be looked up in the SI prefix article. One could compare the use of this template to mentioning on articles such as cup that it can be a blue cup, red cup, yellow cup, big cup, small cup, etcetera. Han-Kwang (t) 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Additionally, the template suggests that these prefixes are actually commonly used. I highly doubt that combinations such as yoctowatts, yottakelvins, and centijoules are used in any notable publication, which puts this type of table on the boundary of original research. Han-Kwang (t) 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Also, there are a number of articles which apparently subst'ed this template: kg, metre, steradian, kelvin, some of them having the more common combinations in bold face. Delete template and remove tables from these four articles. (I've mentioned this discussion on their talk pages) Han-Kwang (t) 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete ~~Keep~~. After reviewing all the articles linking to the SI multiples template, I agree that only the SI prefix article makes good use of the template. I would support deleting it if the person deleting it is willing to repair the 7 articles that used it in good faith.

As for unusual prefix-unit combinations being original research, nonsense. The system was designed to allow any prefix to be combined with any unit. Claiming that a prefix-unit combination must be used in a reliable source before it can be used in Wikipedia is like claiming the number 192,384,862,935 must be used in a reliable source before it can be used in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second argument: that's exactly my point. Using this table makes just as much sense as listing all the numbers from 1 to 999,999,999 in the Number article. Han-Kwang (t) 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason for this to be a template would be to include it in multiple articles. However, it is pointless to put it in more than one article. SI prefix is the only place that needs to list every prefix of this kind. Anywhere else, it's just mindless bulking. Wikipedia needs to remain concise. --Yath 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This issue arose because of a dispute (see discussion here) over the inclusion of table of SI-prefixed versions of the kelvin in the Kelvin article. Somone didn’t see the value of it and simply deleted it (notwithstanding that an editors’ note warned of other articles that linked directly to the table). That table lists the full range of the kelvin’s SI-prefixed forms. An individual SI table placed in each article on units of measure serves a purpose that a general link to SI prefixes can't do: as demonstrated in the Kelvin article, it shows which prefixed versions of the unit in question (in bold) are the common ones that one might want to limit themselves to to avoid using those that are overly obscure.

There’s another—and more important—consideration: These tables prevent bloat in articles by avoiding having to explain units of measure in each article that uses them. For instance, the Absolute zero article (as do other articles) might mention a 450 nK record-cold temperature. Note the “nK” link in this just-cited example. It takes the reader to the table where one can see the magnitude of the value in relationship to others. The same thing is done when an article uses “nm” (nanometer) or the “µg” (microgram) in a technical article. Yes, one can use scientific notation. But this sort of stuff quickly starts going over the heads of many readers depending on the nature of the article and how soon in the article it begins using scientific notation; that is, after all, one of the purposes of SI prefixes: to simplify. These tables have been in articles for years now and have served a most useful purpose. Just because someone doesn’t see the value in a template is no justification for deleting it. If they don’t see the value of it, don’t use it. And please stop deleting the tables; it breaks links from other articles. Greg L (my talk) 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very thing for the average non-metricized American. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information isn't quite redundant as it is specific to the unit where it appears. It is not comparable to « mentioning on articles such as cup that it can be a blue cup, red cup, yellow cup, big cup, small cup, etc. » because it is a closed, complete set, whereas the set of cup qualifiers is open-ended (additionally, the individual prefix+unit combinations are all legitimate full-fledged words, not simple locutions. Finally, the template does not « suggest that these prefixes are actually commonly used ».

Bolding for the more common multiples is a good idea, but should probably be handled by adding some parameters to this template rather than subst'ing the table. Urhixidur 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This table provided me with the information I was looking for when I searched for the article. Beneficientor 00:38, 29 August 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:Non-free overload 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 Deleted by author. Mike Peel 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{non-free}} — Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted it myself (I made it), thanks. Calliopejen1 14:05, 23 August 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:Lol 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 as patent nonsense. bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created for no apparent purpose. Stephenb (Talk) 09:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedyable as patent nonsense, perhaps? - Koweja 11:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense Doc Sigma ^{wait, what?} 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Carlosguitar 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Its purpose actually appears to be an alternative to {{fact}}, but it flags citations in the form of a put-down so it's a WP:CIVIL violation waiting to happen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 23 August 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:Ferrari Formula 1 cars 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. IronGargoyle 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated - superseded by {{Scuderia Ferrari}}. Refer to discussion at WP:F1 — DH85868993 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Davnel03 17:53, 28 August 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:Great Stella 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 redirect to Template:PD-ineligible. IronGargoyle 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright claim is invalid. The software apparently generates images of polyhedra, but geometric shapes are ineligible for copyright under US law as they consist entirely of information that is common property. It should be redirected to {{PD-ineligible}}.. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect to PD-ineligible. - Koweja 11:42, 23 August 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 NonTest Cricketer 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. IronGargoyle 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When created, was actually a duplicate of Template:Infobox Recent cricketer anyway. Now superseded by the recent creation of and WP:CRIC's decision to start using Template:Infobox cricketer biography instead. All old uses have now been replaced. Delete. — AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some controversy over this? Delete given the absence of discussion on talk proving seeming consensus.--daniel folsom 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no controversy; but it doesn't fall under any non-TfD-based deletion criterion either. For consensus to use the new template, see WT:CRIC#New Infobox summary and WT:CRIC#New Infobox complete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:03, 23 August 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.