Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20 edit

Template:Infobox Medieval cathedral 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. The two templates as they stand do seem to be different. It would, however, be possible to merge the two if someone cares to do that. Mike Peel 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was used just twice, in March. Now redundant to {{Infobox religious building}}. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And merge per MrZaius, below. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks redundant to me. --Haemo 01:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely redundant. --Son 01:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This info box has a totally different purpose to the religious building if anyone cares to compare them. This one is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland and contains only historical information. It is not concerned withe archtectural or geograhic aspects. The design and colours used are in keeping with the medieval Scottish Bishop (infobox bishopbiog)). It is intended that all medieval cathedrals in Scotland will be covered by this template. Almost nothing in the religious building infobox covers these aspects. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see that the two cathedrals that have been done so far (Elgin Cathedral and Dunkeld Cathedral) have been changed to this other template without the outcome of this discussion having been decided. Bad manners IMO. --Bill Reid | Talk 11:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly surprising though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleting perfectly good existing information and replacing it with a blank infobox which appears to have a different purpose without any attempt at garnering input from the relevant Wikiproject or articles concerned goes a little beyond 'bold' in my book. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As stated above, most of the fields in the template are not present in the template to which it is supposedly "redundant." That said, those fields are relevant outside of the Scottish wikiproject and could be worded in a slightly more general manner and introduced to Infobox religious building. It would just mean adding three or four fields to that template, and, more importantly, would give cause to introduce the information that's left out in the nom'd template - Numerous flags missing in each template are relevant to the vast majority of articles that transclude either one. I think the claim that the colors are significant to be somewhat erroneous, but that too can be set dynamically by a field in Infobox religious building. MrZaius^talk 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No justification provided other than use so far being confined to two articles. Could easily be expanded in use. Plus, even the slightest glance at the two templates shows the incompatibility of the two templates. Medieval cathedrals don't even necessarily exist anymore, and have too many unique details (not that this is exceptional) for one template. Shall we have Template:Thing one day? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason at all that the other template can't be used for non-existent churches, and I still believe that the details listed in the Medieval Cathedrals infobox are largely relevant to the more common template, if worded slightly more generally. MrZaius^talk 21:50, 22 July 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 Resort 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. Sr 13 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused. People need to list these; maybe then they'd get used, rather than dying a slow death. --Haemo 01:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Been around since November and still not used. --Son 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. Dfrg.msc 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused -- Amazins490 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 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 Golf Course 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. Sr 13 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was single use, now redundant to {{Infobox Golf Facility}}. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to the above. --Haemo 01:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been superseded by {{Infobox Golf Facility}} which is vastly superior to the Golf Course template. No need to keep it. --Son 01:24, 21 July 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 golf club 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. Sr 13 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was single use, now redundant to {{Infobox Golf Facility}}. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant; good work consolidating templates. --Haemo 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superseded by Golf Facility template; no need to keep it. --Son 01:26, 21 July 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 fintv 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 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no benefits over Template:Infobox tv. Seems like a duplicate. — Pudeo ⺮ 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's, uh, more colorful? --Haemo 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a duplicate; it's intended to be used on Finnish television-related articles. I'd say keep it, but it was created in August 2006, and is in use in only one article. I'd suggest leaving a note on the discussion page of the article Strömsö before this is deleted. --Son 01:30, 21 July 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 athlete 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 redirected to Template:Infobox Athlete with a capital A. If this was a mistake, please delete the page instead. Shalom ^Hello 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to {{Infobox Athlete}}. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:29, 20 July 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 Cities of Mexico 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. Sr 13 07:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles using this infobox have been standardized to Infobox Settlement. The talk page has nothing worth keeping for historical reasons — MJCdetroit 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Standardise. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good work standardizing. --Haemo 01:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superseded; no need to keep it. --Son 01:35, 21 July 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:Criticism of Islam 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 Merge with {{Muslims and controversies}}. As it stands, these two basically do the same job. There's nothing stopping someone retasking the template(s) to do different jobs in the future, if they want. Mike Peel 10:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the template covers a mere three-article series on the topic (Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Qur'an, and Criticism of Muhammad). most of the sub articles listed acually contain not a word of criticism of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an, so their inclusion appears needless. most importantly, the template is deprecated by the presence of the more detailed and better looking {{Muslims and controversies}}, which seem to contain most of the material in this template anyway. — ITAQALLAH 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very nice template that brings in all the linked article together (e.g. notable critics) for an improved browsing experience. {{Muslims and controversies}} is somewhat vague actually and e.g does not focus on Criticism on Islam which this template does. Its okay to have two templates. Who said we should have only one of the two? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if you have two closely related templates with a lot of the same links in them, then there is the question of redundancy. {{Muslims and controversies}} lists critics already, demonstrating my point nicely. ITAQALLAH 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The COI template gives a lot of defination to COI stuff like the critics and the main articles. The Controversies template should be adjusted to focus on the events. This template is a step in the right direction. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it refers to a seperate issue than "muslims and controversies" as it talks about Islam specifically as a religion, not the action of individuals. I do agree, however, that the template needs expansion. Gtadoc 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template overlaps concepts from "Muslims and controversies". Thus in articles such as "Islam and slavery", which template should we use? Therefore, I support deleting this template and expanding "Muslims and controversies". Vice regent 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, decide on one -- it seems silly to have such close templates. --Haemo 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Template:Muslims and controversies. While I disagree with the nomination reason, the topics do seem to be too similar to warrent different templates. That said, I will admit I do like certian aspects of this template, especially the orange color and big font for the header. All the articles should be merged and the color and format changes (instead of seperating with |, a - may be better) should apply to the Muslims and controversies template, and prahaps that template is due for a major overhaul.--Sefringle^Talk 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sefringle - Great deal of overlap between the two templates. MrZaius^talk 20:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergefor reasons stated above. Dfrg.msc 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Muslims and controversies}} - no benefit in having this additional template. Addhoc 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue with the Muslims and Controversies template (so it appears to me) is that it provides no historical context. Elements of historical Islam are meshed with modern issues, and since the only thing holding them together is controversy (controversy in the sense of both critical analysis and current events), {{Muslims and controversies}} templates strikes me as far less stable than {{Criticism of Islam}}. I suggest that we keep this template and have the other one connect articles about current events; this removes the overlap the nom mentions. Trimming some excessive links off of this template is not a bad idea either. Gracenotes^T § 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per Sefringle, and I think even the nom? This is too limited a template and the purpose is better serverd by {{Muslims and controversies}}. Well meaning, but redundant.--Cerejota 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh... I have a feeling that template will be a problem down the road. Hope not. Gracenotes^T § 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. {{Muslims and controversies}} is sufficient - no need for overlap. → AA ^(talk) — 09:15, 27 July 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:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons 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 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been deprecated through other templates, and thus no longer serves its use. — Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the other templates? --Son 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{1890-1899 Atlantic hurricane seasons}}, all the way through {{2000-2009 Atlantic hurricane seasons}} Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obsolete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:22, 26 July 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:Football-lineups 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. Mike Peel 10:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds an external link to the website www.football-lineups.com. The target site's article has been speedied as non-notable. It's debatable whether this site meets WP:EL's standards, as this site's content is user-contributed and not verifiable or reliably sourced, and the site displays a large number of copyright images without the copyright holder's permission (e.g., player pages. --Muchness 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, images are clearly copyvios and the content is hardly reliable. JACO PLANE • 2007-07-20 16:27
Delete - non-notable site to link too. --Haemo 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems more like a subtle advertisement to get people to go to this website. --Son 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this site is extremely useful for keeping the number of appearences details up to date. Deletion of this template would only serve to make updating player infoboxes more difficult.King of the North East 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could make a bot that gets the appearance info from there and updates the relevant articles, that is, if the info there is reliable. You could use soccerbase for that anyway.
Delete copyvio images, unreliable. Yonatan ^talk 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unreliable. Alexf(t/c) 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Ad. bogdan 17:55, 27 July 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:Usrd-adopt 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. This is too close to WP:OWN. {{maintained}} is an appropriate template to use instead. Mike Peel 10:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't recall the prior discussion, but I believe that we have depreciated article adoption templates in the past.. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, {{maintained}} (which does the same thing basically) has been kept twice. See December 2005 TFD (no consensus) and March 2007 TFD (kept). —Scott5114 ↗ 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scott. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes the March 20007 discussion is the one that I was trying to recall. I had thought that it closed as delete, but obviously, I was wrong. So it appears that the template should not be deleted on those grounds. Does WP:USRD need its own version of the template, or can it just use the standard? I assume that you want to keep it to use the blue sign? Could the language be modified so that it doesn't appear as though you need the approval of the WikiProject to adopt something? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sure could, though currently anyone can take an article and maintain it. (→O - R L Y?) 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scott5114. I see no reason to delete this. --Son 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a flipping through of the precedents, there really isn't a reason to delete this. That is especially when both of the previous debates ended in a keep/no consensus. (→O - R L Y?) 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{maintained}}; I wasn't really supportive of this from the beginning, but redirecting this could really ease users' concerns. (→O - R L Y?) 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Scott. Dfrg.msc 09:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple people are allowed to "adopt" an article; see the history of Talk:U.S. Route 50. Redirect to template:maintained. We already have a template to do this. --NE2 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scott 5114. master son^{T - C} 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: After carefully considering this - it does imply ownership - I would also suggest using {{maintained}} instead since it fits the purpose here more accurately. I also would like to urge searching out the facts before making such templates in the future master son^{T - C} 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the temp Scott refers to, it lets users know that the person listed is claiming to help the project by taking responsibility of the page (e.g. reverting vandalism, making minor edits, etc.), so that frees up others to do major edits and research on others of the same project. It's by no means a badge of ownership, but a tool to help divvy out minor, but important, work. EaglesFanInTampa ^{(Walk with me, talk with me!)} 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't they let us know they're doing those things by... actually doing those things? Actions that show up in the article history speak louder than flags planted on the talk page. --W.marsh 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're missing the point; if there's something signifying there's one particular person responsible for minor edits like rvv's, grammar, etc., that says to someone, "OK, I don't need to worry so much about this page since 'so-and-so' has it covered," whereas you could have dozens of people watching continuously on an article, so when there is something minute that needs to be corrected, they jump right on it, instead of doing something more constructive, such as expanding stubs, creating maps, etc. If one person elects to be the guy/gal to keep a page clean and up-to-snuff, I think they should be allowed to announce it with something like this. But, of course, the more time we spend arguing about this, the less time we have to spend on "actually doing those things," right? EaglesFanInTampa ^{(Walk with me, talk with me!)} 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's just that someone adding their name to this template gives me little confidence someone will actually follow through. Seeing them actually do it in the article history does give me that confidence. Of course they mean well but anyone can add their name to a template (except apparently NE2). --W.marsh 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If people want to work hard on an article, great, we'll know that from the article history. I just don't see the need for templates that say "look at me! I'm working on this article!" a bunch of good edits in the article history is the way to show such a thing. --W.marsh 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles don't have maintainers because of WP:OWN. If the project wishes to put a wikiproject banner on the talk page, that is perfectly fine. It should not have any individual's name on it. Note that {{maintained}} is about sourcing, not about maintaining the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is a community project; all articles are maintained by the community. Reverting vandalism and keeping pages up to standards is what everybody should already be doing. W.marsh is right on the money; the article history should speak for itself. Branding articles with a "maintainer" like this seems to suggest ownership and shades of egotism. Krimpet 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Only one of the keep votes came from someone who wasn't using this template before the TFD started. It's important to know your sample. --W.marsh 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the argument that it must be ok because {{maintained}} has survived deletion by not reaching a consensus is clearly spurious; Wikipedia doesn't function on the basis of precedent. The template implies ownership, which is contrary to the wiki-process. Addhoc 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not exactly what I was trying to put across when I created this program. It's not ownership, it's simply a way for us to know our blind spots and know who is keeping track of what within the WikiProject. There's a lot of articles in the project that haven't been kept maintained, that's the problem, and this is a way to determine which ones those are. I cited the second {{maintained}} TFD because of the precedent; the first TFD was cited for full disclosure.—Scott5114 ↗ 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to your statement of 'the template implies ownership', this is incorrect, as the template clearly has a disclaimer stating: 'Article adoption does not imply ownership.' Therefore, that argument is invalid. I still contend it's well worth the space it takes as per my arguments above. EaglesFanInTampa ^{(Walk with me, talk with me!)} 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree, Those full page real-estate notices in the airplane magazines are still ads despite the disclaimer at the bottom "this is not a real estate solicitation in the areas where such solicitations are prohibited by law". Davemeistermoab 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just work on the article; there's no need to mark your territory. I really don't like seeing a big, self-important "I work on this article!" box on the top of a talk page. TomTheHand 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is cute but says nothing {{maintained}} doesn't already say, and with less implied ownership. Daniel Case 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the term adoption does imply ownership, despite what the template says. "Maintenance" is a better word, in my opinion. Gracenotes^T § 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I also just add that, as a parent through adoption myself, some of us have a little problem with the proliferation of "adopt-a-highway" in real life and similar such as it tends to trivialize adoption (How would you feel if the way you came into your family was applied to pets and roads as well? It makes some adopted children feel like they're just expensive possessions to be easily discarded). Daniel Case 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll abstain from actually voting, but I want to ask what's the point of this template? If you want to keep an article free of vandalism, add it to your watchlist. If you want to let people know that you are a major contributor to the article, and are knowledgeable on its topic, then it will show in the edit history. To me it doesn't make sense to put a template on a talk page saying "this user will edit this article", when this is a wiki, and anyone should be able to edit any article. It's like putting a template at the top of the page saying the sky is blue.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template does imply ownership despite the disclaimer. I also see this as leading to a lot of petty bickering. For example If I undo a vandalism edit before the "adoptee" does do I get to delete him from the adoptee field and put my name in because "he was negligent in his care of the page and I SAVED THE DAY!!!!"Davemeistermoab 23:26, 27 July 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:Air Transport Association 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 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the WP:CLS guidelines, I do not see the point of this navigation template. It seems like its sole purpose is just for the sake of having such a template. As the guidelines say, "Alphabetical order is not preferable", which clearly this navigation template does. Also, most of the articles listed on this template do not even mention anything about being Air Transport Association members (other than this template), so it currently fails the "Is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in the series?" test. Finally, I highly doubt it is useful; I do not think a majority of readers would even consider reading every article whose subject is a "Air Transport Association member". — Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to all who have voted Keep prior to this point. Please assume good faith. Ever since the implementation of collapsible article series blocks and navigation templates such as {{Navigation}} and {{Navbox generic}}, there have been an exponential proliferation of such templates on topics that under WP:CLS would better be suited as a category or a list. Traditionally, the rules of WP:CLS has fallen under the one of the reasons to propose a TFD discussion: "The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". If there is consensus here that it currently follows the guidelines of WP:CLS, then we can keep it. So far, since the very first version of this template, I currently do not see a reason that is "likely that people would actually want to read the articles in that order".[1] Just because "this template allows easy access to member pages", or "Each article should mention ATA membership ... The presence of this box takes care of it." is not sufficient enough because a list or a category could do the job as well. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the disagreement we have is that the subject of ATA membership may be way too minor and trivial for the average reader because it seems like an industry specific organisation that a majority of people do not know about. I am more confident about the ordering of a template like {{California}} because there seems to be consensus that a number of groups of readers ranging from tourists, to natives, to business people, to governement officials would want to read topics about California in that order. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why would someone want to read all the articles about all the cities in California in alphabetical order any more or any less than airlines? Your argument makes no sense. One of the most essential elements in WP:CLS is the statement that the various methods of navigation are "most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." In other words, let's not forget the bottom line here: how can we provide the most effective ways for our readers to navigate around. Having both nav boxes and categories offers our users mulitple ways of navigating, which is a good thing. Go back to WP:CLS and read the advantages and disadvantages of nav boxes...notice how the "disadvantages" section is really weak, and a number of the items listed aren't really specific disadvantages at all? And notice how the "advantages" section has some pretty good arguments? These boxes are a very effective tool, so is it any wonder that the Aviation Wikiproject, to which the Airline Wikiproject is a subproject of, has made considerable use of them? It seems to me that, at a minimum, before nominating a template like this for deletion, a querey to the Project might have been enlightening. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a nav template used by WikiProject Airlines for airline-related articles. For Zzyzx11 it might not appear useful, but last I checked that wasn't a test for deletion consideration. Why are you using the test of whether someone would read every article in the template? You wouldn't apply that same test to {{California}} or any other major template, would you? AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my comment, I am trying to understand how it passes the "Is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in the series?" test of WP:CLS#Article series boxes. And how is it different than a template that was deleted on similar grounds? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry, I should have addressed this: Each article should mention ATA membership. The presence of this box takes care of it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under review...Gaimhreadhan • 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template allows easy access to member pages. Plus, it also points out that that airline is a member. You obviously haven't navigated through these pages before. It is very resourceful.--Golich17 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete - Unlike airline alliances, this is a rather loose association and does not need instant visibility on airline articles. Those who really need to know every member of the ATA can click once and view the category. DB (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise and delete - as per User:DB with additional comment that Air Transport Association is not up to standard as yet and doesn't really explain much as to what the ATA actually does and stands for. --Russavia 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links many pages together in a logical fashion. Dfrg.msc 09:00, 22 July 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.

PATH 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 all. Sr 13 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JSQ-33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:HOB-33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:JSQ-33 via HOB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH infobox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:HOB-WTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NWK-WTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH HOB33 HOBWTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH HOBWTC NWKWTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH JSQ33 HOBWTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH JSQ33VIAHOB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH JSQ33 NWKWTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH JSQNWK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH NWKWTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH JSQ33 HOB33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:PATH line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. The relevant project pages have been updated. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody will ever use these templates again. Shalom ^Hello 03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superseded. (→O - R L Y?) 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant! Good work making new, better ones. --Haemo 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Quite superseded at this point; no need to keep them. --Son 01:33, 21 July 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.