Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7 edit

Template:Communist Parties 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Changing to a navbox is an editorial decision; this may be a good thing to discuss on its Talk page. --ais523 08:32, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Delete. So many reasons. Where are historical parties (CPSU, CPYugo, etc.), where are Maoist or Troskyist groups? Why duplicate list of communist parties? Who sets inclusion guidlines? Why not just use Category:Communist parties? Why only communists, why not liberals or Christian Democrats? Why isn't the title in English? Where are they "edit, view, talk" buttons? Delete and salt. – --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to navbox. The entry criteria is vague in the extreme, and the auto-collapsing is really a hack to keep it less than a page long. The subject is probably worth navboxing, but the current format is inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I created the template as a navigational tool for the contemporary mainstream communist movement. If you think that there technical problems or unclear delimitations, bring that to the talk page of the template. I don't see any of the causes mentioned as reasons for deletion. --Soman (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll just write down some thoughts I am making. They may help you, they may not. I can't express an opinion pro or against the template yet. I hope the discussion helps me to form one. a. Converting to a navbox sounds a good idea but I think there was a navbox in the past and was replaced by this template. Or not? b. This template looks very good and if we decide to keep it we just have to make some small expansion like adding the historical parties, c. My problem with this template is that gives the impression that the only communist parties are they ones shown there but I think this can be fixed by an expansion of something, d. List of communist parties has the same problem described in c. – Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks nice but "Why duplicate list of communist parties?" this template is redundant.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Soman pointed out, this template is for the modern 'mainline' communist parties, many of which are elected to various parliaments or actually lead governments. In addition, there are similar templates for other ideological groupings of parties (such as Trotskyism and Maoism). These mainline CPs definitely deserve their own template, considering that Trotskyism and Maoism have templates as well. Cmrdm (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last remark is a very strong reason to keep the template. I think we have to add view/edit/discuss buttons to both Maoism and Communist Parties templates and convert Trotskyism in a similar one. Maybe create Hoxhaism as well. Then put links to all each other. My vote is Keep. – Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; informative and concise JEREMY 12:22, 17 April 2008 (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:Picture needed 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete unused and somewhat duplicated - Nabla (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little used in the past two years and all of its features are included in other templates listed at Category:Image request templates. – GregManninLB (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which template, specifically, duplicates its functionality? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there are several templates that do the same thing. Wizardman 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in lack of a response to my query, as none of the alternatives provided can be used to indicate the required position of the image, or indeed be used on the article itself rather than the talk page. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This template has no means of indicating what the picture itself should be, though, whereas the talk page template is meant to reflect the presence of a discussion requesting a picture. Gracenotes^T § 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, scratch that, it does (the first numbered parameter). My mistake. Still, such requests should probably be made out of article space, as they're not quite maintenance-related or necessary for the development of the article. (This image probably won't look too good on mirrors, either.) Gracenotes^T § 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you place this template on an article talk page, the template code causes "This template belongs on the talk page" to be displayed in red.[1] So I am unclear why this template can be used on the article itself rather than the talk page. As to indicating the required position of the image, many of the Category:Image request templates have parameters that allow a user to post any message they want about the photo request, including indicating the required position of the image. If you are talking about image placeholders for article space to show where the image might fit well in the article, there is a supply of such placeholders at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders that can be used in article space. Deleting this template won't delete the picture used in the template. GregManninLB (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2008 (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:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --ais523 08:34, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Overkill. Applies simplistic and inconsistent geographic/political criteria to linguistics. If it were to be completed, it would have to include the Saxons of Transsylvania and the Kola Norwegians and the Estonian Swedes, etc. Also, just for example, Germany is linked in this template three times, since German, Dutch and Frisian are spoken there (as is "Nordic" - Danish in Schleswig - but for some reason this section doesn't mention Germany.) Altogether, not exactly a good idea. It also links to France since there is a Dutch minority somewhere up north, but the template - for good reasons imho - doesn't show up in the article on France. Delete, please. – Janneman (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- do you support making a new template or replacing it with an existing template? Also, why not just add in the missing sections that you used as an argument for deletion?--DerRichter (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. You don't seem to get the point - my arguments were meant to show the sheer absurdity of the template, not to show possibilities for expansion. Completeness or consitency are simply not feasible here. Andy why would anyone want to group nations or even "regions" by the language families that the majority and/or minority population happens to speak? Why would anyone want to navigate from Malta to Alsace-Moselle and Jewish Autonomous Oblast on the grounds that Germanic languages happen to be spoken there? --Janneman (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well while you are at it, take out Template:Romance-speaking nations of Europe as well. --DerRichter (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the Germanic regions is an oversimplifation; and potentially untrue per comments above. It would be nice if there were some references (templates appear to be exempted from core guidelines like WP:OR and WP:V). With regard to Romance speaking countries, I agree, that one should be taken out too; for much the same reasons. Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some April 2007 discussion about this template here. GregManninLB (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, minor inconsistencies are not grounds more deletion. In line with a multitude of other templates on languages spoken in areas. I've removed the image though, unnecessary and a bandwidth concern on some pages (eg. national pages with a multitude of images and infobox templates). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - template clutter. The information contained in this template is appropriate in German language, but it should not appear at the bottom of every article about a region of Europe in which German is spoken. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what "Germanic" means, do you? We're speaking a Germanic language right now. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oversimplifying and unnecessary. --Snottily (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to have yet another template for country articles. Also Template:Romance-speaking nations of Europe - Nabla (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly 'yet another' as it pre-dates many of those used now. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (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:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the same as above. Nations don't speak. In Finland/Aland e.g., there's quite a few Finns who don't speak Finnish and form part of the Finnish nation all the same. And if nations happen to have official languages, why oh why are they grouped by language families? – Janneman (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such templates are established. Btw, there's a distinction between nation and country. Nations usually speak, countries usually don't. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

such templates are established isn't exactly what I'd call a valid argument. Even so, and assuming that nationa do in fact speak, how do you account for that part of the Finnish nation that happens not to speak a word of Finnish? Calling the Vojvodina a nation is, regardless whether you're Serbian or Hungarian, rather strange, don't you think? --Janneman (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See nation and country, it seems to me you're a little unclear on the terms. Åland doesn't form part of the Finnish nation, but the Finnish country (Finland). About Vojvodina, I'm not arguing for the veracity of every claim within, but that's not a valid argument for deletion either - WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to have yet another template for country articles. - Nabla (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly 'yet another' as it pre-dates many of those used now. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:41, 30 April 2008 (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:Wikia genealogy 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, less functional subset of {{wikia}}. – Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I see it *is* currently unused, but it should be noted that the {{wikia}} template itself is currently up for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2008 (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.

Star Trek character 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete, since it now qualifies under WP:CSD#T3 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hackish attempts to centralise some template code, now obsolete as transcluding templates have been rewritten. Unused. – Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:21, 7 April 2008 (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:Usman Ihtsham 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 section.

The result of the debate was that the template was deleted by User:Pedro. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ6 12 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template only contains one link to WhatIfGaming, which is also up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatIfGaming. Also possibly created by person who has Conflict of interest. BoL (Talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete: the WhatIfGaming has ben deleted this template is useless.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (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 Asian baseball team 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Infobox baseball team}}. Articles should use that template instead. – Rolando (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it really is a duplicate a lower quality duplicate.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (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:Template requires defaultsort 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Nabla (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template to just provide a small text in other templates. I think we can write the text in the three templates and then delete the template. Let's make things simpler – Magioladitis (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with "{{DEFAULTSORT:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}" and subst and delete. Seriously, adding {{DEFAULTSORT}} isn't complicated, and I don't think we need a template to request it, nor do we need text in three templates do to so (which would likely not even get noticed) Gracenotes^T § 02:33, 7 April 2008 (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 toomanyedits user page 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 section.

The result of the debate was close and relist at MfD. All UBX should go through MfD, reassert any rationales there. Non-admin closure. ><RichardΩ6 12 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for nominating the template are as follows:

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Just becasue myspace users spend a lot of time working on their user page doesn't mean we should. A nice userpage is one thing, spending all your time on it and ignoring the encyclopedia is another.
This contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, and honestly, it probably says something about the people that have that template on their user page, and it's not necessarily something good.
I don't see a reason to keep the template. It just seems useless to me. – Wizardman 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The response to too many user page edits is not adding more user page edits. Danny (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Danny and Daniel (and now Dan) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Wizardman. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly harmless. Some users do spend far too much time working on their user page, and may do so for any number of reasons, so WP:NOT#MYSPACE doesn't really apply. Nor is there any suggestion that users do so at the expense of the encyclopedia, though how people wish to spend their time is up to them. The nom may be right that this "contributes nothing to the encyclopedia", but you can probably say the same about 99% of other userboxes. I don't see any compelling reason for deletion here. PC78 (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also speedy close as this needs to be listed at WP:MfD. PC78 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite clearly a template, in the template namespace. Daniel (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are all you admins having a bad day? :) Please refer to the guidelines at the top of WP:TfD. Userboxes: "List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in." I don't make the rules. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (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:No separate DTV 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per user request below (CSD#G7). —Travis ^talk 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is purely prose, and should be subst'd into articles.. – ViperSnake151 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom explains pretty well why. Wizardman 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – normally, prose templates are not the best solution, but this one seems to have been edited quite a bit in the past few months, and is transcluded on 61 pages. Substing is fine so long as the current text is optimal and unlikely to change in the future. Can the nominator provide assurance that this is the case? Either way, the ==Digital television== header should be moved from the template to the articles. Gracenotes^T § 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I was the author of this prose template, and did not know that prose templates were inappropriate when I created it. All transclusions have been replaced with actual text, so this template can be speedy deleted. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 7 April 2008 (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:Flag image 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Template:Infobox flag. All information can be represented in this template. – Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not quite why nom suggested. {{flag image}} in articles such as Flag of the United States and Flag of Europe is not used as an infobox, but as a means of displaying other versions of the flag adjacent to article prose. In my opinion, though, the table and extra parameters provided by the template are not needed, and it could be deleted and replaced with [[Image:Name of alternate flag.svg|thumb|210x105px|caption]] (to achieve this, simplify the template to something like this before substing and deleting). Gracenotes^T § 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serves a purpose for displaying the symbols of flags outside the infobox. Saves the hassle of writing out the above suggested image code. No need to remove this, it is doing a good job. Go find something to delete that is actually causing a problem.- J Logan ^t: 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any editor incapable of using the extremely simple image code for this... well, I won't finish this, but you see where I am going. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JLogan's explanation. – ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JLogan's good explanation. JRG (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JLogans right. it would take alot of work to redo all the times this templates been used. and it makes things easier for editors. why would we ditch something that helps? Gailim (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JLogans. Though in my opinion the suggested alternative of using standard image/thumb code doesn't work as well for pages with multiple flag images, since each image and its caption would get wrapped into columns of differing widths. The normal solution for this would be to use a consistent image width parameter (such as the default one), but that doesn't work in the case of flag images, where consistent height rather than width is desirable. The template solves this problem by using a consistent height for the images, and a consistent width for their captions. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JLogan's explanation. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. JLogan couldn't explain it better. – Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (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.