Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8 edit

Template:NZ Aerodrome Warning 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! 09:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has a disclaimer on every page. We don't need this bold warning on each New Zealand airport article. Posting specific disclaimers like this has been rejected in the past, eg on medical articles, since to post on some articles but not all might increase the legal risk to Wikipedia.gadfium 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks very messy on pages - SimonLyall 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I a agree with the nom on this. And also seems pretty useless. ~ Arjun 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shanes 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NDT. Chris cheese whine 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clutter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 9 February 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 page.

Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated21 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! 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the parent template of these templates for deletion a few weeks back. I created them, and was later convinced not to use them. See that nomination for a discussion of why not. Coemgenus 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated21 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated22 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated23 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated24 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated25 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated26 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated27 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated28 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated29 
‎Template:Infobox Episcopal Succession/bishopconsecrated30

Delete The template is not displaying properly and is generally irrelevant.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the template creator nominates them, probably no one else is going to use them either. — coelacan talk — 02:33, 9 February 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 page.

Template:Virgin Media Television 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 and move Template:Flextech over it. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An exact copy of the Virgin Media Television article that should be deleted (but isn't suitable for speedy deletion), because a copy of an existing article, as per previous TfD's are not suitable as a template at all. It should also be ideally be replaced with Template:Flextech as Flextech has renamed to Virgin Media Television. --tgheretford (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as template masquerading as article content. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this very strange and very misleading creation, per nom and Chrisf. Wrong namespace. — coelacan talk — 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move Template:Flextech over it per nom. --Random832(t c) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move Template:Flextech over it, it's not even like a template, more like an article. AxG ^(talk) _{(guest book)} 10:48, 10 February 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 page.

Template:Christian Brothers secondary schools in Australia 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template contents seem to be dumped from Category:Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools which serves the purpose adequately and more efficiently. See below. —Moondyne 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Satu Suro 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the template is quite handy for getting around, and saves having to visit another wikipedia page. I can't see any reason why it should be deleted.Imalegend 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "dumped from Category:Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools ", because that category was nowhere near as comprehensive as it should have been either. I spent a good while updating it, as well as this template (which originally had quite a few mistakes).

As for the usefulness of this template, I don't see why it should be deleted (I agree as per Imalegend's comments). The Aquinas and CBC pages do indeed have too many list templates, but this list in itself is relevant and useful (where the CB category is a world-wide one, and not specifcally Australian). For Catholic schools, having a template for regional associations (eg. sports-based) and one for congregational groupings (Christian Brothers, Marist Brothers, Sisters of Mercy, etc.) is not going overboard. More than two templates, however, does look messy. Rob Lindsey 09:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, from the three templates I nominated, this one would be the one I could see as being the most use. But, what does it do that a category doesn't? I'm unconvinced. —Moondyne 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough question. First thing, as you know, there isn't actually a category for Australian CB schools. We can make one if people decide to delete the template perhaps. The big problem is that the overarching category "Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools" is nowhere near complete - when it is someday, it'll stand somewhere in the figure of 200-300, and the Australian schools won't be sorted or identifiable in any way. To get around this, we can either create a template (which someone did), or a new category. The other issue that arises here though is the threat of too many categories (and these schools already have plenty)! If the other templates are deleted (which looks likely), I feel that this one won't be cluttering up these articles, and it visibly links the CB schools who have a shared heritage and culture, which I at least feel is an important feature of these schools. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a big huff either way, so I'll pipe down and let this democratic process continue! :D Rob Lindsey 03:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation Rob. I agree that more work in that CB schools area is needed at Wikpedia. I can also see that congregational groupings arguably have more relevance to lists that straight denominational groupings which can tend towards being vague, particularly under the Catholic umbrella. I would hate to stand in the way of progressing this and would be happy to collaborate also. Assuming that the other two templates below will be deleted the argument for too much clutter on articles is reduced, so with all of that said, I'll do a flip and change to Keep. —Moondyne 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Who are these people who want to be able to navigate through the Christian Brothers secondary schools in Australia without visiting a category? And how often do they do so? These templates offer nothing, and detract from the articles, especially when there are lots of them. Hesperian 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could ask about "who these people are" for any topic one could care to name. However, I know of plenty of people who are interested in 1) The nature and scope of Catholic education in Australia (as a graduate teacher) and 2) The Christian Brothers network as it exists throughout Australia (as a worker within the Edmund Rice Network). The Congregational background of a non-Diocesan Catholic school, and the resulting links to other Congregational schools, are an essential part of the school identity and ethos that these articles attempt to present. Rob Lindsey 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still find the notion that these templates are valuable for navigation hard to swallow, but I'm prepared to accept that you're better qualified than me to assess whether "links to other congregational schools are an essential part of the school identity and ethos that these article attempt to present." Vote struck (for now). Hesperian 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly replace with a list eg List of Christian Brothers secondary schools in Australia, or rely on the category. Orderinchaos78 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good template, there are any templates about school in different countries.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable group.

Keep As per above - this is a great part of the schools identity. Smbarnzy 08:23, 14 February 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 page.

Template:Catholic Church Schools in Western Australia 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! 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft. Inaccurate as many schools listed are not CC anyway. Could be better dealt with using categories IMO. —Moondyne 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTCRUFT:

The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.

—Moondyne 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Satu Suro 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the template is misleading with Anglican schools included - should be removed urgently Satu Suro 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too many schools. Also note my comments above on templates for Catholic schools. Rob Lindsey 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hesperian 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The description could theoretically fit more than 300 schools. Also per Moondyne's comments above. Orderinchaos78 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is quite a large template, it still a good template which could be made very useful on the appropriate articles.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not accurate. RaNdOm26 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inaccurate, also a cat could be more useful. ~ Arjun 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be cleaned up and have catholic defined on the talk page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, however you need to remove Anglican schools from the list. See Guildford Grammar School. Auroranorth 09:20, 16 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Independent schools in Perth, Western Australia 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! 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "independent" mean? Independent of government funding? Is it the same as what I call "private schools"? If so, isn't it the case that there are way too many of them to cram into a template? There is an association AISWA whose membership is 147 schools. Some of the schools listed in the template are not in that membership list and others that are members are not in the template. Look at (for example) Christian Brothers College, Perth. These templates are listcruft. -- —Moondyne 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the search tool, there are 164 schools, of which 121 are in Perth. Hesperian 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 164 and 123. But point taken. —Moondyne 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hesperian 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satu Suro 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too imprecise. There is arguments within the private school sphere as to whether Anglican, Catholic and Uniting Schools are actually independent, anyway, or whether independence is from the government or from something else. Orderinchaos78 11:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now I supported the above templates similar to this but it seems now as this was created because the user was bored (with no disrespect to him or her). This one is irrelevant.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could be changed to Private schools in Perth, Western Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Private schools would be a false statement, see my below Resounding Keep vote.
  - The name is not so much the issue as is the content. Its a rubbery grouping and if applied to the association, there's too many items for a template. —Moondyne 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resounding Keep - In Western Australia, there is a fine line between 'private' and 'independent' schools. Government funding is given to all schools, however as independent schools receive funding from tuition fees, the Government does not give as much. Private schools are normally run by the Catholic Education Office and, as the office name suggests, are schools based on the Roman Catholic faith. Auroranorth 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, read Moondyne's comment above. The issue is not the name, it's the impractability of a template with every WA school of this kind. Rob Lindsey 10:38, 16 February 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 page.

Template:Gifted Education 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! 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self referential and useless. --Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this supposed to be some sort of Wikischool? -Amark moo! 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more suited to web resource than encyclopaedia Orderinchaos78 11:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the comments made above, no internal links so it would mean the viewer would have to find everything themselves and to be quite honest, does not seem worth the trouble.Telly addict^{Editor review!}
Tentative delete, until someone can explain what the thing is actually supposed to do. I am assuming that it doesn't merely insert that text into the article (since that would be extremely poor style, not to mention a self-reference). Chris cheese whine 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, in fact, exactly what it does. Totally useless, and the only inclusion is on a page that's in the PROD deletion queue. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:59, 15 February 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 page.

Template:Wikiproject Little Einsteins 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! 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A part of a now-inexistant project on Little Einsteins, a franchise too new and too small to have one (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Little Einsteins). --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a template for a nonexistent Wikiproject. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the wikiproject comes up with a red link. Clearly not useful. Orderinchaos78 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Wikiproject existed then I would vote keep but because the project is now inactive, it's just taking up unnecessary server space.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:45, 8 February 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 page.