Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30 edit

Template:WMATA map infobox 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 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; deprecated by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#Template:WMATA map infobox NE2 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be replaced by {{Infobox Station}}. See Waterfront-SEU (Washington Metro) for example. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:18, 31 May 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:Sgspoiler 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 send it through the Stargate. IronGargoyle 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for almost exactly the same reasons as Template:BSG-Spoiler, the only difference is that this template is transcluded onto four non-article pages. This template is a duplicate of {{spoiler-season}} and even uses {{spoiler-season}} as a meta-template. While the template was nominated for deletion back in February with no consensus, most of the keep votes no longer applies because this template is not used in article space. --Farix (Talk) 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per precedent and WP:IAR - no further discussion is needed. Yechiel Man 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. {{spoiler-season}} will do. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons already mentioned. {{spoiler-season}} already does the exact same thing, as far as can tell. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Pax:Vobiscum 10:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this as redundant. --Edwin Herdman 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant template. Doczilla 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I suggest waiting until things have calmed down before deleting anything. Lots of spoiler tags are being removed at the moment and there's no way to be sure they will all stay removed. Give it a few weeks and if the template is still not used, then delete it. The points about it being redundant are nonsense - nothing absolutely needs a template, we use them to make life easier. This template is easier to use than the more general template, and it isn't hurting anyone, so why not keep it? --Tango 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple spoiler warnings are bad enough without having special ones for particular TV series. Eclecticology 18:33, 1 June 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:Mercury Program 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 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Project Mercury}}. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps we should have the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Space decide which to keep? Personally, I prefer {{Mercury Program}} to {{Project Mercury}}, however we obviously need to keep only one of the templates. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a distinct difference, one is about the whole program (including componenets and stuff), the other about the missions. However I'm not a big fan of these kinds of nav boxes with information that is all properly linked troughout the subject itself, so i vote delete. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple copy. Jmlk 1 7 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove Redundant copy that is not necessary. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ricnun created {{Mercury Program}} on 15 May. Ricnun was aware of {{Project Mercury}}, as evidenced by edits Ricnun made to that template prior to 15 May. Ricnun is a valued editor-in-good-standing of space-related articles, and deserves our assumption of good faith. How could advocating deletion of the template, without first understanding Ricnun's reasons for creating it, be consistent with Wikipedia's best interests? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Mercury Program template is, I think, of more benefit due to it having the extra details about the components and launch sites in addition to the missions, and so should be kept in place of the Project Mercury Template. It's pointless getting rid of an improvement to something to go back to the original, don't you think? Colds7ream 09:19, 1 June 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:S-ptd 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 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant; s-ptd used to produce an identical succession box as Template:S-tul, and it has thus been decided by the WikiProject Succession Box Standardization that it would be superseded by the latter (to which the former now redirects). We have had a bot substitute the template in question with s-tul in all articles and all that is left now is to delete an unnecessary piece of code. — Waltham, The Duke of 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few remaining transclusions of the template; otherwise, go ahead and delete as redundant. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is fine with me, if it's redundant. john k 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I proposed this deletion with The Duke of Waltham and I created the template originally. However, since it's creation, all its purposes have been merged with Template:s-tul making this template defunct. –Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundancy has no place here in regards to templates. Jmlk 1 7 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Alkari (?) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once all uses are rejigged to use the new template. —Phil | Talk 15:03, 31 May 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:1989 Chicago Cubs 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 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for people who played on a given divisional championship team in 1989. Not really so critically useful to navigation that it needs to be on the page of every player from that team, and also, do we really want the precedent? There are players who could theoretically have dozens of these templates (think Derek Jeter, John Smoltz, etc.)... it would just be clutter. This sort of thing is just more appropriate for articles to cover than templates. — W.marsh 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the amazing clutter this would create. No prejudice against creating articles on each team/year including rosters and significant events of the team that season, which could be linked to (subtly) from each player on that team. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh man, this would create such a mess, as per Myke's comments above. Jmlk 1 7 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. If you multiply the number of major league teams by the number of historical seasons, you can see why this sets a bad precedent. Yechiel Man 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having templates like this one is just a bad idea from a usability standpoint. Pax:Vobiscum 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are similar template for the 1984 and 2003 Cubs teams, which should probably be deleted also. Dsreyn 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- can we add them to this TfD or is it too late? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're covered by the same basic clutter principle and no one disagrees with that... so I don't see why we can't include them with this TFD. --W.marsh 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and related non-critical templates before it gets out of hand, per W.marsh's commentary. --Edwin Herdman 02:41, 1 June 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:Miniblocked 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 Speedily Deleted by Pathoschild. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this template is needed, if any one can honestly say the've seen it around Wikipedia in the past it would be surprising. This template is also covered by the better and more regularly used {{indefblockeduser}} and their are other more appropriate indef block templates like {{subst:uw-block3}} and ones like {{subst:Article5i}}. So I nominate this template for deletion — The Sunshine Man 10:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. >Radiant< 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as the creator; no longer used. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:29:43, 30 May 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 section.

Template:ADCE 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 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC) The purpose of this is to use it with years, so that people can use their monobook style sheet to choose whether they want to see the years as "Anno Domini" or as "Common Era". The point is that nobody does this, the template is hardly in use after several years, and this is just added complexity for no real benefit. Yes, the AD/CE controversy is annoying, but no, this template doesn't solve anything. >Radiant< 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template is pointless and, thankfully, underused. Yechiel Man 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I never quite got round to nominating this myself, as it serves the quite useful purpose of saying "but {{ADCE}} never became popular" when discussing why other similar templates won't work. But that really isn't a good reason for keeping. --ais523 12:54, 31 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete. Converting between Gregorian, pre-Gregorian calendars, and all the other calendars out there is a complex issue which requires close attention, and I mistrust any template which creates the illusion that it is easily 'solved' by slapping on a template. --Edwin Herdman 02:46, 1 June 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:Bjaodn 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. There is clearly no consensus on the issue of the template, and llywrch makes some good points about waiting until the dust settles one way or the other on the BJAODN issue before proceeding. IronGargoyle 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of May 30, 2007, almost all of the pages at BJAODN have been deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson as a violation of the GDFL (please see this discussion). Due to the deletion, this template has become pointless, and I propose it for deletion. If this should have been deleted outside this process, then please enlighten me (although I am an admin, I have never touched TfD before). — Kurykh 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I could not find a suitable CSD reason sufficiently covering this particular situation. —Kurykh 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is a place for rules. That's why we have them. All this humor is ruining worker productivity, and employee raises will be minimal this.... what? work for free?"HOBBY"? Psshh. ThuranX 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since all the pages have not been deleted I see no reason to delete this template. Also, people apparently intend to add new content while preserving attribution so that it will not be deleted in the future. Finally, people could add attribution to the content that has been deleted. It remains to be seen whether anyone is willing to put in the time for that. I do not expect to do it because I am not that interested in BJAODN, but I might do it for other people. -- Kjkolb 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obsolete to main WP:BJADON page, the other links in the template don't necessarily warrant its own template. --tgheretford (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just full of deadlinks, and is unused. Jmlk 1 7 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more deadlinks ;-), but delete anyway. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit of CSD R1. It's not so much one broken redirect, but 63 broken redirects together to deleted pages. Yechiel Man 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the spirit but not the letter of {{db-disambig}}. (Navigation boxes linking insufficient articles is a reasonably common TfD reason, but isn't speediable, so filing the TfD was the in-process thing to do.) --ais523 12:56, 31 May 2007 (U T C)
Keep for now Pending the results of this XfD Whs itc hy 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the result of the BJAODN MfD Hut 8.5 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the BJAODN MfD won't bring back the archives, it's just discussing the main page and the few pages that are left. So this template will never have the 61+ archives listed on it again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but there's talk of a GFDL compliant BJAODN, so it wouldn't hurt to keep it for now Whs itc hy 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I know my comments will be viewed as useless. I think we could have started a massive project to find the diffs and bring GFDL compliance to the archives. -N 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is though, is it really worth it given that project serves no purpose whatsoever to furthering the encyclopedia? Building a list of funny stuff bit by bit is one thing, a "massive project" to do something unrelated to the project's goal is another. --Deskana (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a problem. At least some of the BJAODN and the template in question can be used in a new GFDL-compatible wiki established for the purpose of holding BJAODN from Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As BJAODN is now deleted, this template serves no purpose. Even if I totally disagreed with the deletion of BJAODN, I'd still think this template should be deleted as it references archives which we now know aren't coming back. For the record, I do agree with the deletion. --Deskana (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We will still need to link to the pages that are rescued from this latest vandalism. Eclecticology 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the rationale behind deletion the BJOADN pages was that they violated the GFDL; it was specifically stated that they could be re-created with proper attribution in the future. In fact, there is currently a wheel-war going on over this very principle - i.e. giving people a chance to try and clean up some of them, before deletion. I see no reason to prematurely delete. --Haemo 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We might need it in the future. While I think the wheel-war has wrapped up (correct me if I'm wrong on this), there is nonetheless at least an effort off-Wikipedia to try and clean up some of the BJAODN (I think - once again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Nonetheless, even if the huffed pages remain huffed, we might need the template when new pages arise with a GFDL-friendly BJAODN. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more wheel war over the BJAODN pages, they are staying deleted for now. This template serves no use right now and for future use isn't a rationale for keeping it now. It can be recreated later when we have something to add to it. — Moe ε 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BJAODN still exists, will probably continue to exist in some form, and is currently a work in progress. Not all of the subpages are going away (in fact, there's a lot of stuff being restored), so this template will continue to be necessary in some form or another. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stong Keep Don't let use fall template get delete d BJAODN is still using that template.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to the DRV result. Js farrar 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what's the point of this nomination? At the moment there's a nasty fight currently over whether to delete BJAODN -- or save it. And at the moment, BJAODN is undeleted & needs this template for navigational purposes. It would look awfully, awfully lame for us to end up deleting one & keeping the other. I move that this be closed without consensus, wait until that fight is over, then decide: if BJAODN is gone, this template is gone; otherwise, it is kept because the pages use it. Is there another Admin braver than me (or at least knows the customs & ways of the world of *fD) who will close this discussion for the moment? -- llywrch 20:25, 6 June 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:Frog edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, CSD G2. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has no encylopedic use, and was used to vandalize the page Backlighting (lighting design) along with numerous others by 86.130.90.154. — JWGreen 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a copyvio, so delete. >Radiant< 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No brainer. Its creation borderlines vandalism. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is something like this on Wikipedia ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugby471 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete ASCII vandalism from back in the day. No use, and no need for it to remain here. Jmlk 1 7 21:31, 30 May 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.

NT manuscript 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. IronGargoyle 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the above two infoboxes to create one infobox to serve both purposes (and the minuscules, if and when articles for them are created). There is no reason for two seperate infoboxes for a very similar subject, especially when all of the parameters are the same (and optional). The new template that replaces these two is Template:New Testament manuscript infobox. — Andrew c 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Andrew is making excellent progress with sorting out the Biblical manuscripts categories. It's a big area with room to grow in the future. The name spaces of these infoboxes are legacies of my earlier clumsy attempts to organize information. Alastair Haines 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both are now redundant. Pax:Vobiscum 10:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and unnecessary templates; no use for 'em. Jmlk 1 7 01:00, 1 June 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:Setindexarticle 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 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided template created based on misinterpretation of recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Table instead of a list? and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Distinguishing disambiguation non-articles from index list articles. Set Index articles are a recent exception to standard disambiguation page guidelines for specialized articles. The prototype for this sort of exception was Ship-related disambiguation pages, where there was an active Wikiproject that argued for pages that disambiguated between ships with the same name were better served by including more information that needed for a typical disambiguation page. A second type of exception arose with pages disambiguating Mountains with the same name. Both these special cases have active Wikiprojects supporting them and recommending guidelines for such pages. They each have templates {{Shipindex}} and {{Mountainindex}} which add the pages to specialized categories: Category:Disambiguation lists of ships and Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains. A generic template and category for what was intended to be exceptional is not a good thing, IMO. I have no objection to judiciously creating new types of exceptions, but I'd expect them to be more specific and have the support of an active Wikiproject. See related Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Set index articles— older ≠ wiser 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the description of set index articles on WP:D is intentionally generic to cover the specific uses; there should not be a generic use unless there is a generic Wikiproject working on them, as BKonrad said. -- JHunterJ 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#disagreement about linking to dictionary DABs. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CarolGray 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Paul Erik 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus at WP:DAB and its talk page is that exceptions should be discussed and made in coordination with individual WikiProjects. Dekimasu よ! 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what consensus? See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Clarification_of_.22index_set_article.22_exemption.3F. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:58, 2 June 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.