Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27 edit

Template:Infobox Band 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 Circeus 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has long been deprecated in favor of {{Infobox musical artist}}. All mainspace transclusions have been replaced. Only user page and talk page references remain (and a couple of links from historical Wikipedia-space pages). Xtifr _tälk 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infobox Musical artist. Same thing, essentially. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Won't work--the arguments aren't compatible. If you want to try to write a wrapper to convert the arguments, feel free, but I have to ask why, since this is no longer used on any articles. Seems like something that would be way more effort than it's worth. Xtifr _tälk 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if it is not used any more how are the parameters being different in anyway relevant. No use = no old parameters. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xtifr. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting won't work and unnecessary. --Kudret abi 07:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst old inclusions on talkpages and stuff --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you want me to, I can change all the transclusions to {{Infobox musical artist}}, even though I don't usually like to edit other users' pages. FMAFan1990 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All? No. Some? Yes. In my opinion. Details on your talk page. Xtifr _tälk 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm tired of seeing these, and if there's broken code on pages people will see it and (hopefully) fix it with a new infobox. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 07:31, 6 September 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.

Move warning 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 redirect to uw-moven series templates. --ais523 16:45, 10 September 2007 (U T C)

These user warning templates have been replaced by {{uw-move1}}, {{uw-move2}}, {{uw-move3}}, {{uw-move4}}, and {{uw-move4im}}. The difference is that these templates seem to suggest that unilateral (i.e. undiscussed) moves somehow go against policy. Template:MP1, which states "before renaming or moving a Wikipedia article, please use the article's Talk page to discuss whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees with the move", could even be deleted per CSD T2 as a fairly blatant misrepresentation of established policy (WP:BOLD) and practice. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no longer useful. Isopropyl 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How often do these templates get used nowadays? I realize they're generally subst'ed and Special:Whatlinkshere is of little help, but maybe Redirect to the current templates instead of delete them? --Stratadrake 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates themselves have relatively few incoming links (especially the 5th one). Most incoming links are to redirects to these templates, which have incoming links mostly due to transclusions of Template:TestTemplates, which could/should be updated to use the standard "uw-" format. The reason I didn't suggest a redirect is that MP could be confused for various things, including media player or (what I first thought when I saw the template name) member of parliament. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Editors should not have to relearn the names of warning templates. For their intended purpose (dealing with vandal moves of a budding Willy on Wheels), I'm not sure the tone is inappropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the appropriate uw template. No reason to delete them when you can just redirect. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of {{MP2}}, redirect all "MP" templates to their "uw-" counterparts. Due to differences in wording, {{MP2}} is better for warning vandals, while {{uw-move2}} is more suited to warning users about moving pages against consensus, which isn't necessarily vandalism. --Ixfd64 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, template misrepresents policy (CSD#T2). Also, redirect won't hurt. >Radiant< 07:52, 30 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:Unit of length 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. Alterations can be made directly to the template, or discussed on the template's talk page, as appropriate. Mike Peel 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not helpful. It adds equivalent dimensions in Astronomical Units, Light Years, Ångströms to all units of length. This is just silly. It produces huge numbers and tiny numbers that are surely not helpful to reader. The articles themselves say what they are. Lightmouse 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a well-accepted template used on numerous articles, and I don't agree about its contents not being useful. It could probably use some cleanup and tweaking, but I see nothing wrong with it. At least until we build units (Unix) into Wikipedia. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an equivalent of an infobox for unit of length articles. Pretty useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Utterly harmless set of conversion factors. If you don't want it in a particular article, take it out; but a box is better than a paragraph for this sort of thing anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix or delete There are, for any given measurement, no more than four units that would actually be useful and appropriate. Anything else would be a waste of space and possibly even silly. Dfmclean 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (I modified my own vote and reasoning) Dfmclean 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PMAnderson. If it doesn't make sense on certain articles that's fine, bring it up on the talk page, but it's actually really useful to know how many feet are in a kilometer, for example. Some people are more familiar with different units/systems of measure. --JayHenry 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Fix: There are a lot of nonsense conversions cluttering the box up. No, we don't need to include the number of Ångströms there are in a parsec but the number of lightyears there are is useful information. What it needs is a clean up rather than deletion. J ɪ m p 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've made some adjustments to the template to get rid of the absurd numbers. It's not perfect but it's somewhat better. See talk. J ɪ m p 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Fix. Yes, in some situations, some of the measurements are trivial, e.g. like how light years are in a mm, but I am under the impression that it doesn't hurt. To reverse the reasoning of the nominator: inches and millimeters look "silly" when this template is used Parsec. Maybe some #if: would fix this? —MJCdetroit
- Some #ifexpr: might do better but that for the template's talk page ... J ɪ m p 02:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the changes made by Jimp on 2007 08 29. My only suggestion would be change the text on the first row to "SI units" instead of "International". Not all countries outside the US use SI, so SI is more specific. Michael Daly 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change to "SI units". Popkultur 00:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've made some further adjustments to the template including the change from International units to SI units. J ɪ m p 00:55, 4 September 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:Political Affiliations: Gambia 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 with links added to article to compensate. Circeus 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is intended to be a legend for political party abbreviations. However, this function can be effectively served by piped links. Separate templates, which require separate sections in articles and separate maintenance, are unneeded. I have replaced both transclusions of this particular template, so it is presently orphaned. Delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to maintain data integrity the template should not be deleted until such time as the replacement format is in place. --JohnArmagh 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your comment? These edits (one of which you've reverted) replaced the template's use by linking the abbreviations directly to the articles on the political parties. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if piped links aren't used, the legend can be converted into text. There's really no need for this to exist as a template. PC78 02:22, 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:Infobox AEXA 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. matt br 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template, non-standard format, and info included directly in main page: Agencia Espacial Mexicana. –Sarregouset (Talk) 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single purpose template which has replaced with a standard infobox and is no longer required. PC78 19:52, 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:Tags 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. matt br 09:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is transcluded onto quite a few image pages and some user talk pages, but I have no idea what it's for. — —Angr/talk 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some sort of failed "viral template" experiment? Delete, doesn't seem too helpful/useful. Gracenotes^T § 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've had a look and I can't see any purpose for this template to exist. It doesn't seem to do anything, or be helpful in any way. PC78 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not entirely sure, but I think it may have been intended as a sort of "uw-template-not-properly-transcluded" warning template, but I don't think we need such a beast, and this doesn't really do the job in any case. I have other theories about what it might be, but they offer even less reason to keep. Xtifr _tälk 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete been on my list of things to check for ages. Agathoclea 12:07, 2 September 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:FC Inter 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. bibliomaniac 15 Two years of trouble and general madness 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

such as Template were no need because it contain non-free logo, and just a link. — Matthew_hk t c 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read TfD log on 2007-03-21. Matthew_hk t c 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy?), take away the non-free image and all that's left is a link, which certainly doesn't require a template. PC78 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, against policy and unuseful. Punkmorten 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete policy contradictions do nothing good here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated by Template:Internazionale. ugen64 04:17, 2 September 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.

Korean 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. matt br 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infoboxes which are now redundant following a recent upgrade to the far more widely used {{Infobox Korean settlement}}. PC78 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate, but not delete. While they are no longer used, leaving them may be helpful to those who review old revisions of articles that once used them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand things, it is common practise to delete a deprecated template once all transclusions have been removed. Surely your argument could be used to keep just about anything at TfD? PC78 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but try to save any relevant talk pages as archives of the Infobox Korean settlement's talk page. —MJCdetroit 13:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and there doesn't seem to be anything worth saving on these talk pages. PC78 13:29, 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.

Korean 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. Redirects cannot be deprecated. Circeus 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and long since merged into {{Infobox Korean name}}, these no longer serve any purpose even as redirects. PC78 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate, but not delete. While they are no longer used, leaving them may be helpful to those who review old revisions of articles that once used them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand things, it is common practise to delete a deprecated template once all transclusions have been removed. Surely your argument could be used to keep just about anything at TfD? PC78 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not anything; only the templates that used to be used on a reasonably large scale. Of course, one would actually have to know whether it was the case. Judging from what I've seen, this particular template should be deprecated, not deleted. I personally find it extremely annoying when old revisions do not display properly because most of the templates have long since been deleted. If they used to be valid templates and are now properly marked as deprecated because an improved but incompatible version is available, then what harm is there in keeping them?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think old revisions is something we should be overly concerned with, and if it helps I don't believe that any of these templates were used "on a reasonably large scale". Your arguments would seem better suited to {{Infobox Band}} (listed above), which I'm sure did receive widespread use at one time, but even then I would maintain that this is contrary to established practise regarding deprecated templates. PC78 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just happen to look at it differently—you do not see a problem where I see one. But that's why we are having a vote in the first place :) I still stand by my belief that if a template is valid and served a useful purpose at some point in time, there is no good reason to delete it; deprecating it is a better option. The template is going to take server space either way, only when it's deprecated, it will show up in old revisions, and when it's deleted, it will only be available for viewing by admins. "Established practice", in my opinion, is not a good reason to delete unused templates left and right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:38, 31 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.