Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5 edit

Template:WikiProject Womens football edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the taskforce on women's football (uses {{football|women=yes}}). —StuartBrady (Talk) 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as redundant/obsolete. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, taskforce template redundant to main WikiProject template. (related TFD discussion) Gracenotes^T § 18:50, 8 October 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:Palestinian state edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is highly unnecessary and is not the intended function for a template. Obviously the nature and status of Palestine is a contentious issue, but the explanations of the hows and whys it is contentious would be better presented in the context of the article, rather than slapping the same boilerplate box on the top of every page. — Tarc 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Should be deleted. Additionally, we do have a disambig notice in Palestine, and we can it notices in the other articles it discusses, if we must. okedem 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Function: The template is to act like Template:About lists of countries and territories or Template:Uni in disambiguating commonly-confused terms. If you are concerned about clutter, you could simply make the template a footer like the former example, and/or add it in the "see also" section. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two others Justin (koavf) mentions are great candidates for deletion, too. We have simple, low-profile disambiguation templates already; these "Monster DABs" are a hideous eyesore. I look forward to us setting a precedent with this one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore? So, would you be opposed to putting this in the see also section of the articles? Again, that seems like it might be helpful. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to the articles themselves in the "See also" section - no need for a template. This template goes against Wikipedia's styling conventions, and is quite frankly pointless. okedem 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eyesore indeed. M0RD00R 18:58, 9 October 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:Japan 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grossly over-simplified infobox that was apparently created with the sole intention of replacing the comprehensive Tokyo-infobox already in use in the Tokyo article. The only editor in favour of using this new template is its creator, and it is not currently used in any articles. — DAJF 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Current infobox uses Infobox Prefecture Japan, which is the common one used for all Japanese prefectures. There is no reason to have a special, simplified one for Tokyo. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly unnecessary and a duplication of Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan. Tarc 13:18, 12 October 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:SE edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-ref (it's only currently used on 2 articles). — RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If such a WikiProject existed, the template would be restructured and put on the articles' talk page, but I can't find a WikiProject about social engineering as a means of breaching security. Gracenotes^T § 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, if it was for a real WikiProject, it would need to be totally different than this to go on talk pages. Rocket000 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1 ("patent nonsense", defined in relevant part as "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Pointers to pretend projects certainly qualify. I've tagged it with {{db-g1}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:50, 8 October 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:-! 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. And please don't list it again for awhile. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template just recently survived TFD. However, the discussion overlooked 2 crucial facts (not to mention ignoring the fact it hasn't found any use even though it's "OMG USEFUL"):

The pipe is no longer the favored separating character for footers and such templates. Bullets or dashes are now more usual.
We already have a widely used template to do that: {{nowrap}}.

Circeus 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the same reasons as I stated on October 1, and that nowrap doesn't always solve the problem that this template solves. For example, typing {{nowrap|[[link]] |}} will not work because the second pipe will be interpreted as a parameter separator to nowrap, and {{nowrap|[[link]] {{!}}}} is more cumbersome and can lead to more confusion in coding navboxes because of the number of curly braces that then need to be tracked and matched up than just [[link]]{{-!}}. Just because a useful template isn't used now, doesn't mean it won't be used in the future. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Primo, This "useful template" template has had three weeks to find use, and utterly failed. Secundo, pipes are still fading out of use in navigation templates. Circeus 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep-As the nom points out, another nomination of this template closed only yesterday. If there's an issue with the closure, it should go to WP:DRV.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed the points I raise, which certainly were not in the previous nom. please address them before advocating a speedy anything. Circeus 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy anything - Using WP:DRV to advocate deletion is generally just if there is an error in the closure. This was closed correctly. Immediate XfD relistings are distasteful because they can be used to keep rehashing something until you wear down your opponents. This doesn't seem to be the case here. It is valid to have a new TfD because new objections have been raised. While people have suggested it might be useful to somebody someday, I haven't seen any cases right now where it is useful. —dgies^t_c 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if someone wants to use a pipe in navigational templates, specifically those not meant for mainspace, what is the problem? Gracenotes^T § 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already Template:! and Template:Nowrap. —dgies^t_c 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so what's the issue with combining them for pithiness? Gracenotes^T § 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a TfD debate was just closed on October 4 with keep as the result. JPG-GR 06:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete, but only as a pair or a trio: If this is going to be TfD'd one way or the other, the nomination should be complete and include Template:!- and perhaps Template:!! as well as this Template:-!, all of which are effectively redundant with Template:! (which basically cannot be TfD'd, or a zillion tables inside templates will fall apart). As per Gracenotes, I can't see a compelling reason for deleting them, but as per others I don't see a compelling one for keeping them either. Basically all they do is turn -{{!}} into {{-!}}, or {{!}}- into {{!-}}, which is not particularly useful, except in the case of Template:!!, which actually does save a few keystrokes by turning {{!}}{{!}} into {{!!}}. Even so, the difference is too small for anyone to really care about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:47, 8 October 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:Maroon Jazz 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Article on a non-notable group, mistakenly created in template name space. —dgies^t_c 17:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful or encyclopedic template.. ... discospinster _talk 00:43, 5 October 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.