Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28 edit

Template:alpha software and Template:gamma software 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 redirect one template and delete the other. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{future software}} and {{beta software}}. These two seem to have been forgotten. The beta one was changed to include all software in progress (alpha, beta, gamma, ~~delta, epsilon..~~) [1], so we really don't need these two. They already been merged, and I guess "beta" is a good enough name given it's popular usage (though technically not). And they both use a non-free image. - Rocket000 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect alpha to beta, and delete gamma as unused and unnecessary. --Quiddity 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete per quiddity. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:20, 4 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:Shuttle ISS mission 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 Subst. and delete. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Template namespace state that "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." In this specific case, this just seems like added bureaucracy; there is no requirement to keep all of the first sentences of the articles the same. Let's keep things simple, shall we? Mike Peel 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used automate the lead sections for an arbitarily selected group of Space Shuttle missions to the ISS. It restricts the ease with which these articles can be edited, and adds nothing to the page content. It should be substituted and deleted. — GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it actually used? Because if it is something used to provide a baseline boilerplate text that then can be edited, I don't see what would be wrong about that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion. It can't be edited for each individual page. That is why I am suggesting that it be substituted, but seeing as only a finite number of shuttle missions to the ISS exist, there is no point keeping the template after substitution, as there will be no pages that will require it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Templates should never masquerade as prose content. Circeus 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template is being used to facilitate consistency, but it in no way enforces it. Editors are free to use the template on articles where it is helpful, and remove it (subst-ing if they wish) where they feel it is not of benefit. Subst'ing universally now would make the job of retaining consistency more difficult, for no real benefit. (sdsds - talk) 00:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the standardization that this template is facilitating is trivial, IMO not worth the problems that having a prose text template causes. Subst all uses of it. Bryan Derksen 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - could you please explain (or reference an explanation for) "the problems that having a prose text template causes"? (sdsds - talk) 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it impossible to edit that portion of text for each article. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? It means to customize that section of the article (i.e. make it non-standard for its type), the editor needs to delete the template and then add custom text, or subst the template and then customize the text. Alternately, an editor can modify the template so that the improved wording can be leveraged across all articles of the type. Having used a template (in the past) does not make anything "impossible" for an article. (sdsds - talk) 02:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you subst or delete, then it defeats the object of having the template, and if your changes do not apply to all articles, then you can't edit the template and make them universally. There is also no "edit" button for the template available on the article pages. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is kind of pointless to have a template to create the first sentence of an article. We don't want templates to micromanage the creation of article text. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the point is to facilitate consistency between articles that are about similar subjects. Put another way, is there any reason why the first sentence of STS-102 should be phrased differently than the first sentence of STS-116? (sdsds - talk) 05:33, 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:Singapore building 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 Convert to standard infobox and delete. Mike Peel 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily localized fork of {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. The three extra parameters ("chinese name", which must become "native name", "alt name" and the dubiously useful "renovate") can easily, and should be (the first exists in {{Airport infobox}}) integrated into the main infobox. Circeus 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Forking should be avoided whenever possible. Since there are 3 local names, they can be identified by tags such as {{zh}} or something more appropriate. That said, is this the proper venue for the discussion? --Rifleman 82 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I strongly feel a "native name" parameter is an appropriate addition to the Skycraper box. Circeus 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add extra parameters to {{Infobox Skyscraper}}, then delete this one. Resurgent insurgent 06:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —MJCdetroit 03:12, 4 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:Transportation in New York City 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! 03:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any articles, still appears to be under construction, hasn't been edited since April 2007, confusingly features links to Paris transportation articles (despite having NYC in its title). –Dream out loud (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed -- Though large, it could still be useful. Any links to Paris should be fixed, and separate "hide: features should be added. ---- DanTD 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the content in this template is covered elsewhere ({{PATHServices}}, {{New York City Subway}}, {{North American airport people movers}}). Gracenotes^T § 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are indeed a number of different transportation systems, and therefore first we need this comprehensive template, and yes, it would be good to implement the hide feature for the different sections. If we haven't been using it, we should. DGG (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. I find it redundant to {{MTA (New York)}}, but my feelings on whether it should be deleted is mixed. If anyone has any ideas to put it to use, go ahead. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. It is not currently used in any articles, and because it is so enormous, I am having trouble seeing where it would be. Marc Shepherd 00:24, 3 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:ScottishWikiProjectActivity 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. matt br 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Template created for a single user, see also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007#Category:JohnManuel templates.. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:52, 28 September 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:WikiProjectActivity 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. matt br 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Template created for a single user, see also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007#Category:JohnManuel templates.. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:51, 28 September 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:Koreanname Chinesename 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 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Infobox East Asian}}, which can be used to the same effect. Only had about eight transclusions, all of which have been replaced. — PC78 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - As this is recommended for use in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), I've left a note on that article's talk page. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:12, 4 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.

WP:POINT warnings 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 GDonato (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "four template warnings and a block" system works fine for vandalism, personal attacks and blatant WP:NPOV violations, but for WP:POINT issues it doesn't seem useful to me. This isn't so much because POINT is "just a guideline". It's more because determining whether someone violated POINT is inherently nebulous and subjective. A POINT violation is not an indisputable, clear-cut offense like vandalism. If someone does violate POINT, an actual typed message would be more beneficial than a template. szyslak 06:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nomination. I agree with the WP:POINT guideline, but enforcing this through template warnings is unhelpful. Those who violate WP:POINT so are usually established contributors, and WP:TEMPLAR concerns come into play. Furthermore, POINT violations come in so many different shapes and sizes that a one-size-fit-all template is a bad idea. Customizing messages, worded depending on the nature of the problem, is far better. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is far from clear that what some people consider disruption-to-make-a-point is actually grounds for blocking in all or most cases. >Radiant< 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in general, people who are trying to make a WP:POINT are fairly established editors, and a personal note would be more appropriate. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:03, 4 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:User clinical coder 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 subst and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete This is not a userbox, but a job description for a clinical coder. It is used only on the userpage of Cwray (talk · contribs). There's no reason whatsoever that this should be in template space. szyslak 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, as it really cannot be used anywhere else. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, unsuitable for reuse on other user pages. Resurgent insurgent 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete, agree as above. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 12:02, 4 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.

Chinese Emperor 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 GDonato (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2004, {{Chinese Emperor}} was split into the above variants, each with their own slightly different combination of fields, but all essentially the same. I've gone back to the original template, cleaned up the code and added parser functions, so all of these are now redundant. Only three of them (#1, 4 and 7) were actually being used, and the meagre sum of around 35 transclusions have all been replaced. PC78 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per excellent job made by PC78. Carlosguitar 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about the {{Chinese Emperor 6}} redirect? 132.205.44.5 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It redirects to a similar but distinct template, though the redirect itself has no transclusions. I suppose it could be deleted as well, if the closing admin feels so inclined. PC78 06:40, 3 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.