Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3 edit

Template:NHrsa 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a page-widening exploit along the lines of the "WWWWWWWWWW[...]WWWWWWWWWWWWWidener" that WoW and others have used. I know there are other reasons to list this, but I can't think because I'm watching [1] Thanx--68.39.174.238 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is ridiculous. -/- Warren 12:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If even ten of the articles listed in the template existed as of now, then maybe it would have a purpose, but they don't. -- r.y.right 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've hacked out all the relinked individual sections so it's not a page widener anymore. 68.39.174.238 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been edited to the point at which I think it might be save-worthy. 68.39.174.238 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks fine to me. Just H 01:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & split later: a large template for such small content? Cwolfsheep 06:11, 9 January 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:Classiccat 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was listed in Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion but being over half year old I think it should go through the normal process. Creator seems inactive and template seem not in use. Agathoclea 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't clear what this template is for. -/- Warren 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom. Kirils 09:22, 5 January 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:Recent death 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems rather unncessary and somewhat of a memorial, something not in lines of encyclopedia material. --Zimbabweed 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't add anything that the current event tag doesn't alreadyt convey. Wencer 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's basically a copy of the currentevent one.--Wizardman 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per change in wording of template and Hawaiian's reasoning. --Wizardman 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saying "this article documents a current event" when the article is about a person soundsa bit strange. I see no harm in keeping this more specific variation. Perhaps we should do away with the bit about memorial arrangements; I'm not sure those would be encyclopedic to have in the article anyway. -- Hawaiian717 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhat in bad taste, and current event template works fine. --FuriousFreddy 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian. I like specificness. ~Crazytales~patent nonsense! 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Hawaiian717. --Daysleeper47 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I created this template, basically for the same reasons Hawaiian717 has outlined. There are very specific issues surrounding biographies about those who have died recently, which I think are helpful to address in a template like this. Typically, the only "information that changes rapidly" concerns issues surrounding the death, along with the events before and after. I got the idea in the immediate aftermath of Gerald Ford's death, when there was some slight back and forth over whether to use {{current}} at the top of the page or {{current-section}} in the section on his death. Later, there was more than one section about his death, much of which was later moved to Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford. As for the bit about "memorial arrangements", what I had in mind were the deaths of very notable people, such as Ford and James Brown, where their funeral services make news and generate a great deal of interest. But I agree that info about memorial arrangements is unencyclopedic in the vast majority of articles about the recently deceased. I'll go ahead and remove that part of the template. szyslak (t, c) 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: I don't think this template goes against Wikipedia is not a memorial, which was intended to prevent the creation of biographies about non-notable recent decedents, a daily staple of WP:AFD. This tag says "There will be issues with rapidly changing information about recent events", not "It's so sad that this person died". szyslak (t, c) 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do prefer the revised wording to the original. -- Hawaiian717 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per hawaiian. Specificness is good - I don't like calling someone's death a "current event".
Keep, I agree with Hawaiian717's reasoning. --RandomOrca2 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian717. --- RockMFR 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian717. --The Dark Side 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, this has nothing to do with "memorials", it is a specifically useful template. Silensor 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new wording is good, but the white flower has to go – it's completely irrelevant. -/- Warren 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the nominator has somewhat of a point about the template seeming "somewhat of a memorial." On that note, the flower image may be removed. 172 | Talk 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument that the template does not sound like a memorial. The statement that the article is about a person who has recently died is a factual one, and I agree that it's more appropriate than the "current event" template per Hawaiian717. To a more encyclopedic end, I agree the flower should be removed and the wording may be changed to "The subject of this article is a recently deceased individual, and facts pertaining to the death may change rapidly as more information becomes available" or something along those lines. LeSaint 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian717. -- r.y.right 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is "recent"? Wimstead 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, what is "current"? In regards to this template, I think "recent" is however long the person's death and surrounding events are still in the news. When it gets to be that there's no more recent news, and nothing is likely to change, the tag should go off. For major figures such as James Brown, that can take weeks. For less notable people, it could only be a few days. szyslak (t, c) 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unencyclopedic and the small print is clumsy, IMO. I agree with Hawaiian717 that Template:current is not a template to use on pages describing dead people. Nor Template:current is a template to use on pages describing live people. I suggest we keep the consistency by putting Template:current-related on the page when talking about a person, no matter live or dead, as many of us have already been doing. -- Kirils 09:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, {{current}} and many other temporal templates have the same "clumsy small print". When I created the template, I was just following conventional practice, for better or worse. Other common templates with small text include {{cleanup}} and {{POV}}. I'm not against removing the <small> tags and making the text regular size, though, as there are a few temporal tags without small text. szyslak (t, c) 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Template:current is frequently seen on dead people articles where it is clearly nonsensical - Kirilis is right to point out Template:current-related as a better alternative, but the notion of a dead person being a participant in a current event is still somewhat bizarre. However, the difficulty in wording this template properly is almost justification for its deletion - the gap between something that is easily misread as 'In Memoriam/greiving widow' vs 'Kersplat! Look who just snuffed it!' is about a comma wide. I certainly think recently deceased individual would be a step in the wrong direction, but cannot offhand produce anything sensitive without sounding mawkish, morose or over-PC. The template shouldn't be protected until the wording is perfected (may never be agreed upon), and think how much fun it will be to vandalise in the meantime. -CarelessHair 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reiterating what Hawaiian717 mentioned, {{Current}} is rather ambiguous and a more appropriate template is needed to address the commonalities that are found in recently-deceased biography articles—after all, there is in fact a recent deaths page maintained. A good example of a current event template would be {{current-sport}}, which is in wide use, and works much better than the standard version. Jay(Talk) 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- this clears ambiguity of "current event" template Bearly 541 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian. I agreed the points of Hawaiian. DoDoBirds 11:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems a useful alternative to Current Events.--Thomas.macmillan 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if kept, change wording to something like "This article documents a recent death." - Gilliam (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian. Cbrown1023 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the date of death is already specified. There is a recent deaths page that the readers can view to see who all has died recently. Spicy 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is much more specific but not so specific that it can't be frequently used. Being specific is good. -Drdisque 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "current events" type templates are way too cold and impersonable. Keep per Hawaiian. What reader knows about "recent deaths" page? Royalbroil^T : C 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful to be specific in this instance. -- MightyWarrior 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template is useful. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's more respectful than describing someone's death as a 'current event' --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian and the others. —Nightst a llion (?) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian717 & Steve _(Slf67): this is respectful. Cwolfsheep 06:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cwolfsheep 06:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful and more informative than {{currentevent}} - Alison ^✍ 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is more informative, but try comparing it to {{current-related}}. I find that one better because it's more neutral.

Keep per Hawaiian. Bjfcool 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as long as you dont treat it like an unencyclopedic memorial. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make more specific current related templates if possible. It is nice to know what information is rapidly changing. Jon513 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawaiian717. Karnak 14:38, 10 January 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:2006-07 goalscorers lists 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goalscorers articles were deleted here, so no need for this template. --Punkmorten 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the current DRV confirms that they shall be kept deleted. – Elisson • T • C • 21:14, 5 January 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:2006/2007 Serie A Results 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles have been deleted, so no use for this. --Punkmorten 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete all 3 templates placed here. No need for them anymore. Niall123 12:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use. – Elisson • T • C • 21:14, 5 January 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:2006/2007 La Liga Results 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are deleted, so this should go as well. --Punkmorten 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no use. – Elisson • T • C • 21:15, 5 January 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:NFL HoF 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be unused. Its only content is a copyrighted, unlicensed image, which violates the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy: "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace." —Bkell (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this and I admit it was a mistake, but I still think something like the MLB HOF template should be created for the Pro Football HOF. --Phbasketball6 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this be reasonably used with subst: and a well-placed <includeonly>?Circeus 00:49, 11 January 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:ClassicKidsTV 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used for linking wiki with little info of encyclopedic value and no sources and copyvio lyrics. Article on website was deleted. Please also judge merit of the link per article in which template is used. A few may be justified. --Drat (Talk) 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the site is non-notable, and the presence of this template would encourage linking to a site with copyvio content, which is prohibited per WP:EL. szyslak (t, c) 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per base article being deleted. --Wizardman 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is much better style to use a template to link to sites with a regular pattern, rather than using individual links on all pages. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of links from Wikipedia to fansites that have copyvio content. Wikipedia is not legally responsible for what it links to, only what it includes, so there is no point in removing such content. It just damages the usefulness of this project. --Orbling 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's besides the point. There isn't much encyclopedically useful content on that site. Per the external links guidline, Wikipedia should not links to sites that violate copyright as A) "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)", and B) it can make Wikipedia look bad. The fact that others do it is reason to fix those instances, not keep doing it. Note to editors: Orbling has been replacing the template on various articles with plain wikicode links to the site, thus making finding such articles less easy. Please review his contribs when assessing whether the site should be linked on individual pages.--Drat (Talk) 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Szyslak. -/- Warren 12:08, 4 January 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 Ohio State Highway 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, made obsolete by {{Infobox road}}. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wizardman 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- r.y.right 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 8 January 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:Jupiler League Matches 2006-07 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles linked to in this template will get deleted, from July to December. --P e lotas^talk 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how small or insignificant these games are. They appear to be paid professional athetes. Perhaps suggest that the pages be merged together instead of outright deleting them? I looked around at other sports related pages: for instance I found 2006 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships which are just about as detailed (it looks like a bigger venue?). I suppose it's hard to decide what is not noteworthy. Perhaps delete the Hockey page too; but I think some of these things are noteworthy in the lives of the population to be of encyclopedic value. Are these Jupiler guys part of the worlds greatest athletes? Don't know, but the venue seems bigger than the dart league at the local pub. Jeff Carr 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking, Jeff Carr? Delete as a template which only contains links to deleted articles. Punkmorten 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the matches are all deleted. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:39, 10 January 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.