Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28 edit

Template:Herb and spice mixtures 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 administratively closed in deference to the duplicate discussion above.

Template:Herb and spice mixtures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete template that is not used in any article. I tired to speedy it and an obstinate editor kept removing it.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - editor chose to delete this template in an aggressive, unilateral move *before* using Discussion (although asked several times to do so); current discussion is split 50/50 between keeping or merging the template. Badagnani (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination was duplicated on the next day's log page. Both participants have already commented in that second discussion. Normally, the new discussion would be administratively closed in favor of the previous nomination. In this case, the new discussion has greater commentary and participation. This discussion has been closed to prevent confusion between the two discussions. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 31 July 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.

Obsolete math 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 deprecate - I like the soft redirect idea. Happy‑melon 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Floor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ceil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates perform mathematical operations which are now handled by parserfunction expressions with identical names. For example, {{#expr: floor 3.14}} gives the same results as {{Floor|3.14}}... and indeed, each of these templates has been updated to use the parserfunction expressions rather than the more complicated code they originally had. However, we should be using the parserfunctions directly rather than unnecessarily calling templates with a slightly different syntax. I replaced all mainspace uses of these templates with parserfunction logic last week. --CBD 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep these around just so people don't get lost when trying to use them. Tag as deprecated. --- RockMFR 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR or soft redirect to m:Help:ParserFunctions. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:34, 1 August 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:Dorlands 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. The template is no longer functional, and the link is dead. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dorlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

EL template to 404 page. Links should be migrated or removed, either way there is no more need for this template which is deprecated by {{DorlandsDict}}. Selket ^Talk 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 404. This template is b0rked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:49, 31 July 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:DartmouthAnatomy 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DartmouthAnatomy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

EL template to 404 page. I have checked its use in the following articles and found all to result in an error: Acromion, Pronation, Supination, Glenoid labrum . I have found none with a valid link. Selket ^Talk 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing wrong with the template's base URL, but the website nolonger gives access to the surface landmark pages, and seems to have added an additional 'Region' description. The template is fine, but the passed parameter values for specific pages is often now inappropriate. There are 2 options - either someone systematically locates the new correct pages paarmeter values for all 50-odd articles where this template is used OR introduce a new Region parameter (then if only one parameter deteremined to have been specified, the template can show up an error indicating to editors who watch the relevant article that this needs fixing) - see Template talk:DartmouthAnatomy for discussion on how best to move forward with this. David Ruben ^Talk 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless fixed ASAP. This problem was diagnosed in January, and still hasn't been fixed. Either fix it or delete it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broken external-link template, hasn't been fixed, and nobody seems interested in fixing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ, as I indicated above, 1) the template itself not broken, just that the target pages at the excternal web site been reorganised and surface anatomy nolonger accessable. Hence see this edit to Trochlear notch again providing a working link to a nice annotated Xray. 2) Couple of options as to how to sort out currently disrupted past-usage, as set out on the template's talk page, and I'm happy to do the fixing :-)

I've posted a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as to which "fix" method the relevant editors, who would use this template, prefer. I shall be away on holiday for 10days so I promise to come back to this template then, therefore this TfD should be suspended for a couple of weeks at least. David Ruben ^Talk 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My adjective was ambiguous. I meant that the link was b0rked, not the template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it needs to be fixed doesn't mean it should be deleted. JFW | T@lk 05:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switch to Keep I misunderstood the problem. It's not actually the template that needs to be fixed, it's the parameters which are passed to it on the pages which transclude it. So someone needs to go through and edit those pages to repair the dead links, but there's really no action required on the template itself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:52, 5 August 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:RareDiseases 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 Withdrawn. Non-admin closure--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RareDiseases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

EL template to 404 page. I have checked its use in the following articles and found all to result in an error: Arthrogryposis, Ulerythema, Upington disease, Yusho Disease Selket ^Talk 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - National Institiute for Health had changed their website structure - template URL now corrected[1] and it again correctly links to the database. For such rare diseases, having a reliable source to verify the condition and in particular some of the synonyms used is important. David Ruben ^Talk 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Thank you for fixing this. The best result for an AfD is an improved article. --Selket ^Talk 22:36, 28 July 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 Aviation 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Aviation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

despite its name, this template is not an infobox even if you stretch the meaning of the term to breaking point. This is a (poorly reproduced) image frame with a repetition of the article title at the top. It provides no useful features visually (what is the point of repeating the article title in big font over an image??) or navigationally, and creates massive potential fr discrepency by maskerading as an image frame. Circeus (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I and another editor designed this box to provide continuity with {{Infobox Aircraft}} in aviation-related article. We used an infobox format in case we later decided to add more info to the infobox. That might still happen. Alos, and probably most important, this infobox allows us to standardize the Lead photo in aviation article at 300px (per MOS recommendations), while still removing the px from other images in the articles, allowing used preferences to work. I honestly don't see how it's harming anything by being used. - BillCJ (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no, not really an infobox, but serves a useful purpose in providing visual continuity with other aviation content for articles in which one of the more specific aviation infoboxes aren't suitable. If the nom is troubled by the use of the word "infobox" in the template name, perhaps it could be renamed? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per BillCJ and Rlandmann a useful box for aviation articles that dont merit the fuller versions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it supposed to be useful? It does nothing and is into articles as widely disparate as helicopter and general aviation in the United Kingdom. How can it possibly be expanded to add something to all those articles?? Circeus (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that this template appears to be a sub-set of Template:Infobox Aircraft it would be better to combine it with that template rather than simply delete it. The various ship and ship class templates have now been combined into a single template, and this is working well, and the same approach appears suitable here. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - I've been thinking along the same lines. Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin is the initial portion such a system, and its output is basically the same as this template. As it has the formatting necessary to add more sub-templates, it deals with the issue the nom has raised about how it would be expanded. Template:Infobox Aviation Begin might be a suitable name for the merged functions, as the new format is being used for more than just aircraft now, including for aeroengines. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - This template has been applied to a wide variety of aviation-related articles, some of which fall into categories that have Infoboxes already (like Airlines and Aero engines), and some that are easily identifiable as part of a group of articles and which could have an infobox or seriesbox created for them; I've just done this for the aircraft configurations that were previously using this box. But still keep for now. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is useful for aircraft component articles at the very least. Nimbus (talk) 01:49, 5 August 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:U.S. state counties 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

Template:U.S. state counties templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template trying to do the work of a category. We don't need navboxes for linking between templates, we use them for linking between articles. — Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete - per nom.--S_RX 14:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a mostly red linked template that only links to other templates. Not helpful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there is virtually no use for a template which only links to other templates. Terraxos (talk) 04:51, 5 August 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:Please see 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please see (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inapprop wording for WP. Also, {{Details}}, {{Seealso}}and {{Further}} do the some function. The asssociated doc template {{Please see/doc}} should also be deleted.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I created this, and it's still needs some work. It's intended for use on User Talkpages. It directs the User to see a discussion on a Mainspace Talkpage. It is also intended to be Subst:'ed until a more stable form can be created.—Markles 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've completely rewritten the template to make clear that this is intended for the User talk namespace. This looks like a very useful template, and one which I plan to use myself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YKeep - per the rewording of Aervanath.--S_RX 14:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember this as an example, then, of great intention but lousy execution. Thanks for your help! (PS- can this nomination be speedily closed?) —Markles 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can only be closed as a speedy keep if Alan Liefting withdraws the nomination. I've asked him to take another look at the reformed version and see if it passes his standards. If he withdraws the nomination, then it can be speedily kept and the debate closed, unless someone else votes delete before he does that.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, let's let it ride out this nomination (I thus oppose my suggestion to speedy keep). It will give the template more attention, which it deserves.—Markles 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator wishes to withdraw the deletion. After some editing it is now obvious as to what it is for and is of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 28 July 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.