Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10 edit

User:DodgerOfZion/Richardson 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 user request (CSD G7) by User:AliveFreeHappy. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A userbox. Gov. Richardson has dropped his bid for the White House. As the user that created the template, I request its deletion. DodgerOfZion (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Happy‑melon 22:13, 10 January 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:StatusUnclassified 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 as patent nonsense (CSD G1) by User:SkierRMH. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a take a look at it. Moreover it's orphan. — Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 - I can only say, "WTF??" Happy‑melon 22:10, 10 January 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 Exeter Bus 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 - though I think this is actually a fairly conservative interpretation of WP:CSD#G6, along with existing consensus at the AFD that this seems to have simply been left out of. —Random832 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this infobox was part of the a series of deleted articles. It is no longer in use and I think we can delete it.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a relic of the series of deleted articles. A particularly liberal interpretation of WP:CSD#G8 might allow speedy delete, but I wouldn't try it myself if I were an admin. Happy‑melon 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete Travtim^(Talk) 16:40, 11 January 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:Timefact 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! 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and strange version of {{fact}}, only serves to ruin standardisation and advertise a minor wikiproject. Recreation of the (simply redirected by me) Template:Histfact. — Vanished user ^talk 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The templates used at WP:TIMET clearly reflect the guidance to provide sources specifically related with historical timelines or chronologically described facts. That is the main purpose of the project and the templates accomplish such a purpose. These are not accessory templates but the main tools of the project and therefore needed for its goal. The proposal by Vanished user, including the incongruent "advertise a minor wikiproject" perspective, are part of a discrediting campaign driven by Vanished user against the project. It seems that this is one more action based on Cuerden's animosity against editors who happen to be WP:TIMET members but who contradict him on their own and not as representatives of this project. Vanished user has been repeatedly cautioned previously (see User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#POV wars and User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Please_refrain_from_pursuing_the_wrong_target). This type of behavior is perhaps a sequel of the pending arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#... RfA possible too. Beyond these facts, the template is not a recreation as it was created long ago and the template has a clear use in guiding to the kind of Reliable Sources needed at the place or article where the template is placed Daoken 10:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fact - there are already too many of these inline templates to make proper use of them all. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 12:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant. You might not use them, others do. And the clearer the demand, the more likely it is to be met. Relata refero (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may not be all that commonly used; however, there are different types of sources. Suppose an article has plenty of sources w/r/t facts, but none regarding the dates things happened. In such a circumstance (and I think anyone in the History Project may agree) this template could be very useful. --tennis man 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the utility of this. Happy‑melon 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This template refers specifically to the kind of source that must be added. It provides clear guidance and adds to clarity and reliability of sourcing. If not used, a source can be mentioned, responding to the more general "fact" request, that doesn't provide a timeline reliable source. It is specific and needed as well as a clear and easy to follow guidance. Daoken 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's currently used in three articles. Of these three: Water memory's usage is nowhere near any talk of dates or chronological order; in Eastbank Academy, more than just evidence for the date is needed, and it'd be far more appropriate to use {{fact}}. It may be valid in Middleton, New Hampshire, but since it's right next to sentences setting out the dates, it's hard to see how {{fact}} would be so ambiguous that noone could tell. Vanished user ^talk 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - At Middleton, New Hampshire, "fact" could just request source for the inclusion, not the timeline. At Eastbank Academy "fact" could be only for requesting a source of how it was founded, instead "Timefact" requests to source the timeline mentioned in relation with other occurrences. At Water memory the request is for sourcing when that happened not that it happened. Furthermore and for your benefit just a couple of aleatory examples: Here is requested a source of when that happened not only that it happened as it would be using just "fact". Here is requested a source of when happened what and not a source saying only that it happened as it would be using just "fact". Here it is requested to source the order in which it happened with some timeline and not just a source that it happened as it would be using just "fact"..Daoken 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The request here is nothing more than mindless pedantry. The detail (including the timeframe) is elaborated on at length with citations in the article. Is it really necessary to provide a citation for every niggling detail at every point in the article? older ≠ wiser 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Bkonrad here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reviewing the article after the complaint I must agree that it is not absolutely necessary at that point. However, far from pedantry it is plain excessive look for detail, please always assume good faith. Nevertheless the usefulness of the template stands Daoken 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, pointless redundancy. older ≠ wiser 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be very useful in specific cases. Non redundant and clear Travtim^(Talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fairly new Wikiproject, let's give it a chance. We can always revisit this in a few months. Dreadstar † 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid nomination. "Standartization" is a tool, not a goal. Is something "ruins" standartization, then one must look first whether the standartization sucks in the first place. `'Míkka >t 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knowing when something happened is just as important as what happened and obviously such information needs to be sourced properly. ><RichardΩ6 12 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more specific, and so more helpful, than ^{[citation needed]}. Enter in WP:TEMPLATE and it will be used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:25, 13 January 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.

Hard-coded Weatherboxes 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 all. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use replaced with a standard infobox. — MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My kingdom for a way to search for "Template:* weatherbox" JPG-GR (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 09:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but can I have JPG-GR's kingdom now, please?? Happy‑melon 09:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - listing extended and generalised, will add more weatherboxes as they are replaced by {{infobox weather}}. Happy‑melon 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, if it was that easy... why on Earth didn't we do this before?! JPG-GR (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We definitely don't need that. --Dan Leveille^TALK 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, completely redundant, the rest of these would be perfect CSD T3-fodder! ><RichardΩ6 12 10:45, 13 January 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.