Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28 edit

Template:Yorktown1776 header 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 G6 by User:Bibliomaniac15. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace template. Userfy. — Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 18:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and userfied this uncontroversial case. Speedy delete the remaining cross-namespace redirect. Happy‑melon 22:10, 28 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:Current single 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 deletion. This TfD is in the process of being closed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now fully closed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination of this template, the first one can be found here. I assume that the idea behind this template is to be a more specialized version of Template:Current. That means that the guidelines on that page can be assumed to work for this one, too. Now, let's see:

"This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors." - I'm rather sure that current singles don't get nearly as much attention as current events do, and that there's therefore no need whatsoever to warn the editors that the article about a single might be edited massively in a short period of time. Additionally, this template seems to be used as a notice for our readers, not for our editors, since it's added to every single "current" single, no matter how much it is edited.
"It is expected, when used properly, that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days." - Even if I would assume that this template is supposed to appear on articles for several weeks, and not days, a cursory glance at the entries in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Current single reveals that this template is rarely removed from an article once it's added. I picked four links at random and found one article that contained the template for nearly a year, and one that had the template since 2006. I just looked at three more random articles and found two singles from October and September 2006. No one seems to bother to remove the template once it's added, reducing its usefulness (assuming there is one in the first place) significantly.

A few arguments from the previous TfD:

"New charts are issued every week, so chart information -- however minor it may be -- does change rather quickly." - I don't consider a piece of information that changes once a week (at most!) to be something that's changing "rather quickly". It's not even a major piece of information (in the sense that it might change the whole article, or a major part of it, in some way), it's just one number. Do we need a template to tell our readers (even though the template is supposed to be for our editors) that the chart position of this single might change at some point in the next week? What's the point of that, exactly?
"And trust me there are more than a few editors who patrol these weekly and add/remove the template as the charts are updated." - I've proven above that this turned out to be an incorrect statement.
"The template is useful; it helps in categorization/cleanup, as well as being a practical indication to the reader of why some of these articles have incessant vandalism - new singles frequently attract unproductive edits, after all." - The template leaves no category in the article it's added to, so there's no kind of categorization going on. The vandalism argument might be a valid one. I don't know how much vandalism a current single receives, tho, and I doubt that it's enough to warrant a warning for our readers. Either way, the template does not mention any kind of warning in the first place, and the average reader quite probably won't make the connection between "This is a current single" and "This article might get vandalized a little bit more often than usual".
"The template warns that info may be out of date or will advise editors it may need an update." - This is a wiki, and therfore this statement is true for every single article we have. And, once again, the template was supposed to be a convenience for our editors, not for our readers.
"It's a very useful tool in determining which singles actually are current." - That's not the point of the template at all. Otherwise, we could have "Current film", "Current game" and "Current book" templates, too. It's not our job, as an encyclopedia, to tell the people that a single is "current".

So, basically, there's no need for this template, it's not mantained, and it's not used in the way it's supposed to be used. Therefore, deletion seems like the best option to me. --Conti|✉ 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (what an epic argument!). I can see no value to this template over {{current}}, although I would not be averse to adding a parameter to {{current}} to allow "event" to be replaced if necessary. Happy‑melon 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's already possible, actually, see the last example at Template:Current. And I just wanted to refute some arguments before they would come up. :) --Conti|✉ 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is definitely no need for the current singles or album template because the information is already conveyed in the article. Just because a single is current, it doesn't mean we have to over-emphasise it with a distracting banner. It is much better for the article to speak for itself. What's worse is people often forget to remove the template months after a single is off the charts. I don't know if I can cite WP:NPoV in this argument, but putting an unnecessary emphasis on the single being "current" gives undue weight against other information on the song. So yeah, it's much better for the article to speak for itself. Every single has to be "current" at some point, so it's nothing special. Spellcast (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little I can add to the nom. If an article about a single really is seeing large changes in a short period of time, {{current}} can be used, and a decent lead should let our readers know when a single was released. --Phirazo 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to argue keep, given that information can change quickly on a single as it's charting (see If You're Reading This and Find Out Who Your Friends Are as two good examples), but now that I know that {[tl|current}} can be modified to say "this article documents a current single", this template is pretty much redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Template:Current should only be added in accordance with its guideline, tho. Which means that maybe about 95% (or more) of all "current singles" shouldn't contain the template. --Conti|✉ 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How do you define a current single? If you can...we'll then there's still no point. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Information is likely to change as the song remains on the charts." So it's current as long as it's on a chart somewhere. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per vague definition, it just makes for a useless template. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to inform people that it's a new single. The current event template is only to be used when an article is getting edited by hundreds of users at once, as a warning that there will be conflicts. There's no potential for that with a single, and if it ever did happen, the current event template could be used -- a special template for singles is unnecessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:15, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - I work a lot on music articles, and there are often conflicts in the article that I think a message to both editors and readers (regardless of what the original intent was) wouldn't hurt. The conflicts are mostly along the lines of "this album will be coming out" when it is already out, or one part of the article saying it was a #3 song, and another saying it was #7. Alot of time-dated, incomplete update-y type of things that usually get worked out after the album stablizes. To me, it's equivalent to the NPOV or one source tags.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand. You could just use Template:Contradict in these cases (Well, or fix the articles yourself). --Conti|✉ 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleting this template would cause too much of a mess, since it is used in many articles; it's not worth it. Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removal of a template is simple with a bot. Also, the reasons you said for a keep are not really an actual reason pertaining to the discussion. Douglasr007 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see how a more specific template than just "Current" event hurts. - Bagel7^T's 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voting the same as I did on first nom, for same reason(s). - eo (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean these? I refuted your second reason above already, the template is not maintained by anyone. The other reason is "I don't think this one should be zapped just because the "current album" one was". That's true, but besides the point. This template shouldn't be deleted because the current album template was deleted, too, it should be deleted for the reasons I stated above. It's not maintained, it's not used properly and there's just no point to have it in the first place (with very few exceptions that can be covered by using Template:Current). --Conti|✉ 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you found a couple of forgotten ones does not mean the template does not have merit or usefulness. The solution should be that editors pay closer attention to articles, not the deletion of the template. I'm sure there is quite a lot of non-current-single-template text that is way out of date within lots of Wikipedia articles; it's inevitable. When out-of-date templates are found, just remove them from the article, don't completely wipe out the tag. - eo (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That the majority (and not just a couple) of the articles that contain the template that I looked at were singles from 2007 or 2006 was just an additional reason to delete the template, not the main one. The main reason, in my opinion, is the one I outlined in the first paragraph of my nomination. The template is not used in the way it's supposed to be used, and if it would be used properly, there would be only a handful (or even less) articles that contain it, making it pointless to have a seperate template for this in the first place, since we can use Template:Current for those. --Conti|✉ 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the nom's arguments are strong. And, as Spellcast said above, let's allow the articles to speak for themselves. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:27, 3 February 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:ICE NINE KILLS 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 Already deleted under WP:CSD#A7 - non-admin closure. Happy‑melon 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template of a non-notable band whose article was speedily deleted under A7 three months ago. There are no articles in the template either. Pwnage8 (talk) 10:14, 28 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:Research guide 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, defaulting to userfy rather than keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to: User:Shannon bohle/Research guide

Please do not add this to mainspace articles without prior discussion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be spam. And in general a bad idea for the encyclopedia. Rmhermen (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly NOT spam. The Research Guide template contains links to some of the most advanced research tools (freely available) in the academic research community, including major research universities around the world. This includes OCLC and NUCMC. Others are links to published primary source documents frequently used by professional historians and researchers.Shannon bohle (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - template seems to be a collection of sites that enter {{BASEPAGENAME}} as the search request. So I have a few queries -

If this template's inclusion in an article is to assist readers in better understanding the topic - why the arbitrary choice of links? Does Wikipedia recommend these websites as an authoritative location to begin a search on a topic? Are they applicable to all subjects? Items such as Youtube, blogs and social bookmarks are not recognised on Wikipedia as reliable sources in the greater majority of cases, so why the inclusion? What purpose does this template have for the reader other than suggesting they try a google/nyt/yahoo/youtube etc search?

If this template's inclusion is to assist editors in researching the topic, why is not placed on the talk page instead to help kickstart improvements and collaboration?

What is archivopedia and do these links generate click-thru or any other revenue for the organisation?

In either case, the sources provided in the article through in-line citation's, footnotes and further reading sections are intended to give the reader a thorough understanding of the topic. To take today's featured article as an example, what would the addition of this template to the Battle of Ramillies add to the article? A quick test shows not very much, there being scant youtube coverage, no bloggers in either army and the new york times didn't seem to send a correspondent.

I do, however, like the idea if it's used for editors only on talkpages. A sort of "this article needs more sources/citations/expansion, here are some places you can look" template. It doesn't seem viable though with it's current choice of (possibly dubious but well intentioned) search facilities.

One last point, if this template is still being created and tested, why has it been added to a random selection of articles already? Surely it would have been better to finalise it's usage, applicability and content before releasing it into the wild where others may find it a contentious addition. Nanonic (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or move to Wikipedia:Research guide; at the very least keep it away from any and all articles. There is absolutely no way we can have a enormous number of links like this in every article, most of which may have no relevant information on the subject. As a template it is thus impractical, but may be more useful as a "here is a list of useful academic reference sites" type of page - but then it would not be a template anymore. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the hell it's not spam. Referencing and research is not something that can be automated - references are irrelevant unless they are selected to support specific claims; none of these are likely to be used to find such sources as they cannot be sufficiently specific. Any competent researcher would know how to use these search engines, and would be able to use them much more spefically, accurately and precisely than the brute-force, unwieldy search that is generated by using only {{BASEPAGENAME}}. The links entitled "Blogs" and "Social bookmarks" are unlikely to return results which are acceptable reliable sources, "Youtube", "Images", "Visual materials" and "Digitised materials" are likely to result in copyright infringements. Useless, orphaned, dangerous linkspam. Happy‑melon 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it only makes sense when inserted in articles, but it just can't be inserted in all articles. Links to research tools can be placed into some guidelines page so people can keep them in mind, but not into all possible articles. Research tools for an user can also include many other links besides those mentioned in this proposed template. --ssr (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, for all the reasons listed above. JPG-GR (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all will be always relevant, but many of these will be. What gets used as copyvio depends on what people do with it. this is for inexpert editors. No, it wouldnt add much to the article. But yes, proper use would be on the talk page. DGG (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current set of resources is very quirky, and I'm not sure how this will be used. Is the idea for taggers to go through and say, "Oh this article needs cites; I'll flip this research template on the talk page to help people out"? If so, then the idea is useful, but I'd suggest that there needs to be a bit more topic specificity. I'd like to hear from the template creators about intended use, since there isn't much use now, apparently. Is "basepagename" the selection criteria? --Lquilter (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I've been trying to work with Shannon on turning this template into a script-based extension that would provide rapid access to fairly useful repositories of data on the internet. Blanket inclusion on many pages would violate WP:DIRECTORY, but optional activation as part of a script could enhance "web 2.0"-ness. JFW | T@lk 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is a conflict of interest. The user owns at least the domain archivopedia.com (according to whois). Archivopedia.com is a federated search engine focusing on academic and scholarly sources. The web service itself appears reasonably useful, but the new template does not in its current form. Perhaps it should be more specifically an {{archivopedia}} template, much like {{google}} or {{MathSciNet}}. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you clarify how this would be used? Is there a mock-up example somewhere of how this would go in an article? I'm not understanding what purpose it's intended to serve. Chuck (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not entirely sure how this 'template' is a 'proper' Wikipedia resource. Yes it links to several outside sites which may or may notbe useful - but where would this template itself be useful within a WP article? I'm inclined to go along with KathrynLybarger and say it should be 'userfied' and become an {{archivopedia}} template. --Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect and cleanup: this is the kernel of a good idea; but it should be a Wikipedia-namespace page (perhaps Wikipedia:research guide and not as a template. It should also be expanded, with more options for searching -- despite the template creator's protests, these are not the only academic online research services around. I do like the idea of a list of places that will pass your search elsewhere as an aid to doing research, but I don't like the 'endorsement' that this template implies if it is put in articles. Your friendly neighborhood academic librarian, -- phoebe/(talk) 15:32, 3 February 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:Sri-Lanka-politician-photo 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 Discussion merged with a similar discussion (non-admin closure). Happy‑melon 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless non-free template. It is used only on ten pages. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:03, 28 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.