Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 20

< November 19	November 21 >

November 20 edit

Template:TravelWebsites 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. Redundant to category. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material is better covered by Category:Travel websites. It's not clear if the subject refers to just online reservation agents, airline web pages, hotel web pages, general travel information, etc. Also, the template is a spam trap. — Torc2 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I do see the usefulness of the navigational template between these articles. What about making it a protected template? That would stop the spamming entries from being entered. If kept, renaming with parallel definite inclusion criteria should be added. SkierRMH (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - One problem is that it lacks definition. What do people mean by "travel website?" It might be worth it to break it down into separate templates like "online airline booking agents", "online hotel booking agents", "online travel guides", etc. The other big problem is agreeing on the threshold of inclusion and finding sources to allow us to determine whether a given site meets the criteria. Torc2 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep This is a useful template, although I agree that the term "travel website" is ambiguous. Consider renaming to something more accurate like "travel aggregation websites" (although that's a very bad name!). I'm becoming increasingly tired of the deletionist movement in Wikipedia. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 17:07, 24 November 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:MWRA overview 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(Говорить!) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reason that this should be a template rather than just having the contents included in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (the only page that contains the template). Using a template makes it more complicated than it needs to be. The contents seem specific to only one article. Cacophony (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to have been an attempt at Talk:Wachusett Reservoir to get overall information transcluded into various articles. However, the use at this point would only be one article (it looks like a cut& paste from that article) - and it's not used there! Changes to content for that article should be done there, not here. SkierRMH (talk) 17:53, 21 November 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:WP-Futurama-PR 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(Говорить!) 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion, on Talk:Philip J. Fry, which was made on December 20, 2006, without any reply here. The cat into which it purports to sort articles doesn't exist (Category:Requests for WikiProject Futurama peer review). |dorftrottel |talk 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused by the parent project. SkierRMH (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH. JPG-GR (talk) 23:52, 22 November 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:Paris Metropolitan Area 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(Говорить!) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this "template" (resembles rather a "badge") not list every commune in the Paris aire urbaine as its title promises (it shows only 124 communes of 1,584), it is also a misleading and erronous effort to "Americanise" the French demographical statistical terms and system. The official INSEE statistical bureau indicates "urban area" as an official translation for aire urbaine, but the creator of this template seemed to think he knew better. There are other issues - please see the template's talk page for more info and other opinions. Thanks. — THEPROMENADER 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely effort by a single Wikipedian, ThePromenader, to remove a template used in hundreds of articles and to which several editors have contributed, not to mention that this template is also used on the French-speaking Wikipedia. This is part of a long revert war waged by ThePromenader over two years now to remove as much as possible any trace of a 11-million-people metropolitan area of Paris on the English-speaking Wikipedia and describe Paris as a small city of 2 million people (the people living inside the administrative City of Paris). The history of the Paris talk page is full of reams of messages from the said ThePromenader to negate the existence of a Greater Paris metropolis. Good luck reading everything! Hardouin (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "administrative city of Paris" reflects perfectly the real goal of the above contributor - to suggest to the ignorant that there is "another Paris" is much bigger than it really is. Nothing of the sort is true - yet. By its inclusion in irrelevent articles, this is an example of how this template has been misused. THEPROMENADER 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created and inserted into thousands of articles only by yourself - but take the discussion to the relevent talk page please. THEPROMENADER 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on the French-speaking Wikipedia in hundreds of articles there (fr:Modèle:Banlieue de Paris), and I didn't edit those. All I can see here is this is part of your two-year crusade to remove any mention of a metropolitan area of Paris on the English-speaking Wikipedia. Hardouin (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but although still uninformative, the template is correctly named there. There exists no "Paris metropolitan area" in any official administrave English-language publications. The facts speak for themselves. THEPROMENADER 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete a template used in hundreds of articles simply because you don't like its name. Admins have already told you (see here and here) that the name of a template doesn't matter because it doesn't appear in the articles (readers can't see it). But then you will just use any argument I see! Hardouin (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "like" - the template is incomplete, cumbersome, WP:OR, misleading and relatively uninformative. These are not "just any arguments". THEPROMENADER 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is less informative to delete this tempate than keep it, of course it is not complete but not all municipalities in Paris metro area or Aire urbaine are listed in the english version of Wikipedia. There are over 1,000 municipalities it would be impossible but in this tempate the most importants are listed Minato ku (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think it should be a category, not a template; it would be even more informative that way. At least it should be correctly named. Also, it's not only the template itself that is questionable - it is its use, as it has been mis-used as a tool to push a certain misinformative agenda. THEPROMENADER 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

Keep – for the reasons I have stated above. Hardouin (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The same reason than Hardoin Minato ku (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote is from a suspected sockpuppet of Hardouin. THEPROMENADER 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusation. If you're going to accuse each person voting to keep this template of being my sockpuppet, then this is frankly pathetic. And Minato Ku, I have already told you in the past that you need to file a complaint against ThePromenader whenever he accuses you of being my or anyone's sockpuppet. That's the only way to stop him from making such accusations. There's a noticeboard where you can file complaints: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hardouin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little-used account, always appearing to help revert to a version of an article that Hardouin is "protecting", just at the time of conflict. By all means, file a report. THEPROMENADER 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – for all the real and obvious reasons stated above and on the template talk page. THEPROMENADER 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've never heard of this debate before and come in as a neutral party. You need to take this to mediation or arbitration and get a consensus. Outright deletion is severe and unnecessary, especially while this is all in dispute. Torc2 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - INSEE definition of "aire urbaine" is exactly based on the same principle as US "metropolitan area". The translation given by INSEE is obviously litteral, and is never specified as official. If INSEE would translate it as "Bugs Bunny", that wouldn't make of it a Warner Bros character. Metropolitan 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that they are "the same" is only a wishful idea - it is not fact. Try to find "Paris metropolitan area", or "metropolitan area" for anything referring to anything in France, anywhere in any English-language INSEE documentation - or any governmental documentation for that matter. If the INSEE provides a translation, there's a damn good reason for it, so save the irony please. Or are you suggesting that you know their trade better than they? THEPROMENADER 07:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this template is useful because it shows at a glance all the major suburbs of Paris and allows to navigate between them without having to search each suburb individually in different département subpages. Godefroy (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the irony of an Englishman accusing a Frenchman of trying to "Americanise" Wikipedia's coverage of Paris. ThePromenader, do something else with your life, please. Stevage 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin did well to complain to you. BTW, I'm not English. THEPROMENADER 07:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize In terms of practicality, the template is useless because it will either be incomplete or too large. However, I completely disagree with ThePromenader's statement about "aire urbaine" not being equivalent to the common English-language use of the term "metropolitan area". The aire urbaine delineation procedure is exactly the same as the US and Canadian ones (except for precise details such as level of commuting and building block size). Paris does indeed have a metropolitan area. --Polaron | Talk 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that there is a metropolitan area of Paris, only ThePromenader stubbornly denies it. But then if you've been following events you know ThePromenader, when he believes in something he's ready to fight tooth and nail over months to impose his views, even when they aren't shared by anyone else (check for example how he managed to move "List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris" to List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region after wearing out all other editors). Hardouin (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning categorization, we can both have a category "Communes in the metropolitan area of Paris" and also the template Paris Metropolitan Area. One is not exclusive of the other. They serve different purposes. As Godefroy rightly highlighted, the template makes it easy to navigate between the major suburbs of Paris. A category subpage containing 1,584 communes (!) would defeat the purpose of easy navigation between the major suburbs. As for the idea that the template is incomplete: the template only lists the most populated suburbs, it doesn't pretend otherwise, and this is in line with other metro area templates. Check for instance Template:Chicagoland, Template:SF Bay Area, Template:Inner Ring of Golden Horseshoe. These also list only the major towns and cities in their metro areas, they don't list all communities. Hardouin (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you look at the facts (which few of you seem to have done), you'd realise that the U.S. and other country's definition of "metropolitan area" and France's aire urbaine are not at all the same, that France does not use this term for any of its English-language publications (probably for the same reason), that the very official institution that created the aire urbaine concept itself provides its translation. This is not "belief"; this is cold, hard fact.

Yet in spite of all this, a (very) few here seem to think it 'grandiose' to adopt other-language terminology, this in spite of the fact that this practice is original research, totally ignores Wiki conventions, makes phrases using the term unverifiable, not to mention completely masks the precision of the very defined entity that is the aire urbaine with an ambiguous term. I would go as far as to say that an even fewer use this ambiguity and foreign ignorance to promote a personal agenda. All this 'works' for English-speaking wikipedians who don't know any better only because the term (that they already know) "sounds good"; they can't be aware of the obfuscation that's going on here unless they do the research.

I also agree with Godefroy's comment about the utility of being able to rapidly navigate through the communes that make Paris' suburbs, but let me enlighten you to another revealing question: Why is there no Communes in the Paris unité urbaine template? This would be infinitely more useful, and it may even be possible to list all the concerned communes. Yet the author of the "metropolitan area" template saw only fit to promote his neck of the woods (as though it was Paris) - quite revealing of a quite personal agenda. I also find the complete denial of anything fact by the same, not to mention the slanderous personal attacks (that serve in place of fact), equally revealing.

For those truly concerned with the quality and respectability of this publication, I feel badly for you. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 22 November 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:Canada Radio Markets 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(Говорить!) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links or transclusions. The "template" is merely a list of other templates and so is rather pointless imho. — kingboyk (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume this is akin to the templates of the form {{USStateRadioMarkets}} which are then transcluded into the market templates for each US state. Whether or not this will ever have any practical use in the Canadian market templates is unclear at this point. JPG-GR (talk) 23:55, 22 November 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:Info Box Musical Artist 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 test page

No content besides "Template:Infobox Musical Artist," and I don't think there is a speedy deletion category for templates. Possible redirect? GlobeGores (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC). GlobeGores (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the creator was a SPA & template was useless, I tagged it as G2 (test page). SkierRMH (talk) 18:29, 21 November 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:F-Zero characters 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(Говорить!) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless; two characters, a link to the game, and a link to a character list. Every thing else has been redirected to the appropriate location — _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "See also" would work just as well with just two articles. Alpha listing is all soft redirects. SkierRMH (talk) 18:37, 21 November 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:Looney Tunes Golden Collection 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template to navigate a main article and its subs are completely unnecessary. The individual articles are currently up for AfD, but regardless of the outcome, the template is unnecessary. There is sufficient interlinking between the articles. Collectonian (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I don't think a navigation template is needed here. Terraxos (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles have been kept, so I don't feel that strongly about the template debate. We can add five links at the bottom of each page which effectively re-creates the template anyways. Ten links would definitely beg for a template, I guess I could see five going either way. DavidRF (talk) 12:57, 26 November 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.