Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8 edit

Template:Electionpeople 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. Wizardman 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being large and unwieldy, I am not quite sure what this template is about. "Election people" is way too generic and can refer to anything in any country. It seems an arbitrary selection of some bloggers, academics, and officials who at some point had something to say about elections. I don't see any defined criteria for inclusion. As such it is not really appropriate for a navigational box. Renata (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with the points raised here. Clearly the template has grown somewhat unwieldy and would be better served as a collapsible box. The initial reasoning behind the box was to bring attention to the topic of election administration (which related WP entries were in great need of). The template was intended to highlight notable persons whose primary profession or research area involved the administration of election. (not just anyone "who at some point had something to say about elections"). I think the template has proved useful and would suggest looking for improvements rather than deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My major point is that most navigational boxes have very objective scope and very clearly defined criteria: films directed by Doe, cities in municipality x, winners of y competition, etc. This template is very arbitrary and subjective. You don't have navboxes for, say, residents of Paris or international law scholars. Who and why decided that blogger A should be included, while blogger B should not? Renata (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not "most" is accurate or not, but there are a number of examples that show otherwise: Template:PoliticalCampaigns, Template:Politics, Template:Electoral systems, Template:Elections, Template:Voting. WP entries must contend with the issue of notoriety and relevance all the time. I'm all for clarification and suggestions for improvement, but I must oppose deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template suffers from:

Non specific naming
No guide for use on the talk page
Opaque rationale for including new, or dropping old names
Apparently, or non-obviously lacking a key article that it serves to guide navigation for the reader

The connection between the various articles the template is on is threadbare. Analogously, we could have a template entitled "Law People" and have 20 academics, police commisioners, a few lawyers, plus a few advocacy organizations, and a couple of inventers of police equipment and security equipment, to an equally confusing lack of consequence. If there exists an article on electronic election fraud, voting machines, and related controversies for the U.S., this template might have a future, if related to that article.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inappropriate for a template. It's not clear what this is supposed to include: if it's just about anyone who's connected with elections in any way, it's incredibly arbitrary and unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I initially had no opinion, other than that this template did not belong taking up a substantial percentage of cryptographer David_Chaum's page (and so, I removed it and replaced it with a proper infobox) but after having it added back, I tend to agree -- this serves no real purpose (we have categories), doesn't add to the page content (detracts, in the case of Chaum and others), and appears to be thrown together at random, though with a strong bias toward theoretical election technologists who have primary careers with a different focus (such as Ron_Rivest, David Wagner, and Rop Gonggrijp). Where are the elections commissioners, policy-makers, the executives at companies that actually provide elections equipment for real elections? Why isn't Walden O'Dell on here? I suspect there's several hundred other people with biographies on Wikipedia who could as easily be considered an "elections person" of the same level of notability-for-elections, or greater, as the people already on it. If they're added, that just makes the template that much more unwieldy. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 12:18, 18 June 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:Smile 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. Wizardman 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless chain letter. The only reason it wasn't deleted last time was because a bunch of Esperanza members came. This template contributes absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia. --Rory096 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a nice way to just say hi, with a cute smiley face. I don't think it really hurts Wikipedia at all. Beam 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Actually, it contributes some very important values to the project: civility, friendship, appreciation and happiness. I cannot imagine anything sadder than killing a smile. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I really like this and I think it is a very nice way to send some greetings. Please don't delete this, it is very coveted and many people like it. It really isn't bothering anybody, and is a nice thing to have. Thanks Smuckers (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep- see my talk page for a slightly inventive use of this at the top of the page. It also fosters community and has a more focused intent than the biscuits etc. It's not a chain letter as no-one need pass it on unless they want to. I've more often seen people use it as a one-off to be friendly to, for instance, a new-ish user, rather than people forwarding it for the sake of it. Sticky Parkin 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It brightened my day when someone originally put it on my talk page and I have since found it a simple way to say hi, thanks, or commit a random act of kindness towards fellow Wikipedians. It absolutely contributes to the concept of WikiLove and should be kept. It is not a chain letter as no one is forced to pass it on/use it; if you want to be a Grinch that's your prerogative. MissMJ (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see this as a "useless chain letter" - it's actually a rather pleasant way to address another Wikipedian, promoting civility and friendship. It is frequently used in the context of WikiLove for other Wikipedians. While it doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopedia, it certainly promotes the values of the wiki and keeps users in a friendly atmosphere. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes: Keep! It's nice to recieve this. To be honest (and ironic), your userpage doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, but it stays. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually did (in a very literal sense), until Tim Starling disabled that form thing. Indeed you're right though, which is why I don't bother to maintain my userpage and just keep it very simple, and don't actually use it (see my sig). --Rory096 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never quite understood this. I've come across people who spam them. If you genuinely want to be friendly, you should talk to people, not give them some template. If you want a policy- we're not MySpace. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With that logic we should get rid of all templates. And perhaps barnstars while we're at it. — _Maggot^Syn 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. We need more ways, not less to promote wikilove. Oh, and Topic Ban ~~Beam~~Rory096 from TfD for this obvious bad-faith nom. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beam did not nominate this, I did. Are you accusing me of bad faith? --Rory096 19:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're damn right I am. This is classic WP:POINT. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template messages are pretty generic, but I wouldn't consider it something to delete over. If you want to encourage people to write individual messages, great. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and amend it to not encourage spamming but still suggest that others can and are willing to promote its message. I think this should clear up the concerns raised. — _Maggot^Syn 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Causes no harm and many users like it. Anonymous101 has smiled at all people reading this message. Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.Anonymous101 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and apply WP:TROUT to the nominator. I've never used this template, but many users seem to like it and, well, why shouldn't they? It helps create an atmosphere of friendliness and civility, and isn't causing any obvious harm. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Shruti14 --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 June 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:WikiProject Video Games 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. Wizardman 21:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anywhere. No reason to have a redirect for this. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - new search system removes the need for captioned titles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what do you mean by "captioned titles"? Are you responding to the correct TfD? This is not a captioning discussion. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the redirect serves no purpose, but this should arguably actually be at WP:MFD since this is not a template, it's a redirect, and redirects are miscellany. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually redirects would be at WP:RFD, but since this is in the Template namespace, I thought it would go here. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, this is the wrong form to discuss the deletion of redirects. Second, redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 13 June 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:Cvgproject 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 orphaned, and as a result of scripts and the like using the main template rather than this one, there really is no reason to keep this. Redirects are cheap is not an effective argument at all in this case as a result of what goes into assessments. Wizardman 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a redirect, you can always slap a deprecated tag on it, but editors will remember that this is the tag for the WikiProject, and deleting it will not help tagging articles. 70.51.11.11 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was a way to see the last time it was used...? But no one uses it anymore. Even if one person uses it, they can get used to another one (which is shorter and easier btw), right? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, this is the wrong forum to discuss the deletion of redirects. Second, redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 13 June 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:Cvg-proj 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 orphaned, and as a result of scripts and the like using the main template rather than this one, there really is no reason to keep this. Redirects are cheap is not an effective argument at all in this case as a result of what goes into assessments. Wizardman 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a redirect, you can always slap a deprecated tag on it, but editors will remember that this is the tag for the WikiProject, and deleting it will not help tagging articles. 70.51.11.11 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was a way to see the last time it was used...? But no one uses it anymore. Even if one person uses it, they can get used to another one (which is shorter and easier btw), right? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, this is the wrong forum to discuss the deletion of redirects. Second, redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 13 June 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 Province of Cameroon 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. Wizardman 17:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not transcluded, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 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 Mongolian Province 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. Wizardman 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not used, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 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 Dominican municipality 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. Wizardman 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not used, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 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:Detroit Tigers shortstops 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. Yeah, I nommed it, but the rationales to keep makes perfect sense. Wizardman 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the value of it, but at the same time I think this is overtemplating. If one were to keep making templates like this articles would start having 10-15 of them. Should be listified then deleted rather than being in a template. Wizardman 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I don't really have an opinion on whether to keep or delete this myself at this point, looking at the rationales. Just opening discussion. Wizardman 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can understand the concern about overuse of templates. I, too, would not want to see a single player having 10-15 template, as that becomes distracting. However, I think that's a question of when to deploy a tool, rather than when to have the tool available. There have been many great or popular shortstops in Detroit history, and many of those guys don't have a lot of templatss applied. For guys like Alan Trammell, Donie Bush, Billy Rogell, Ed Brinkman, and Tom Veryzer, I think use of the tool is very helpful and not distractin. I note, too, that this particular template has been quite popular. According to the "groks" page view counter, it has received 250 views since December, 2007. And several editors have been working to keep it current. In the end, I think the way to deal with the problem is to be judicious about where such a template is applied to avoid the 10-15 template problem, but not to throw the template out with the bathwater. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I echo Cbl62's comments above. If there were templates for every baseball position, then I would agree with deletion. However, there is only this template and the {{Detroit Tigers second basemen}} template. I'm not sure the original reason for why these two positions were chosen to make templates from, but I can imagine it was partly due to the Alan Trammell/Lou Whitaker connection (sharing the field from 1978–1991), along with the fairly-long tenures of the players over the years at the two positions. – X96lee15 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Embedded list. The "Related topics (navigational lists)" section says: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article.. I don't think these kinds of navigational boxes are useful for the reader, as these players are not all part of a series, or subpages of a Detroit Tigers shortstops article, for example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 June 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:WP:gaming the system 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. Wizardman 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that might be for WP:GAME, but seems unfinished. — Thetrick (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no conceivable use. Sandstein 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete takes longer to type than the link (ie WP:GAME) seems a probable misunderstanding of templates v redirects. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:00, 21 June 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:Female bio 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 --Rodhull andemu 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an article in the wrong namespace. Brianga (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an article in template namespace. Very odd. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to article space~~ and AfD from there, if required. Being in the wrong namespace is not, by itself, a reason for deletion. Sandstein 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the content is also in article form at Bianca Gascoigne. Brianga (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete as misplaced content fork. Sandstein 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and move to article namespace and yes, AfD it. — _Maggot^Syn 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — _Maggot^Syn 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obviously a screw up. --Qyd (talk) 15:12, 10 June 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.