Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 October 7)
< October 6 October 8 >

October 7 edit

Template:Insect spam 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. delldot ∇. 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Insect spam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template transcluded on a single article (that I have also nominated for deletion) and created by a blocked user. Serves no real purpose, the information appears to have been simply copied from a related article. The title is also rather misleading. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 October 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:Manchester and District Cricket Association 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. delldot ∇. 01:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manchester and District Cricket Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The individual clubs in the Manchester and District Cricket Association league are not generally notable, so having a template to link them together is fairly redundant. At present only two clubs have pages and one of those is up for deletion. bigissue (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Down to one club with a page. –bigissue (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No chance of the member clubs meeting WP:N so the template serves no useful purpose. The remaining article should be reviewed to see if it meets WP:N (it might do for historical reasons). BlackJack | talk page 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 20:50, 15 October 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 television 2 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to Template:Infobox television. Mythdon (talk) 15:29, 7 October 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:Deaflympic 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. delldot ∇. 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deaflympic Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Spammy navbox to a series of non-notable articles that were merged back into Deaflympics. Each was a clear deletion candidate/most clearly met the CsD - If they're recreated in a useful manner, great. Without that, though, this template should be popped off. Again, it links to only one article at present, via many redirects. MrZaiustalk 13:11, 7 October 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:Alaska college radio 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utah college radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Idaho college radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hawaii college radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alaska college radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All navbox templates with a single entry, not very useful. No indication that any will ever have any more that the single entry. Rtphokie (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Utah (KAGJ and KSUU should be added to the list), Idaho (KLCZ should be added), Alaska KRUA U of Alaska Anchorage is also a student run college station). According to radio-locator all the stations above are college owned and from the websites look to be student run stations. Delete Hawaii, just one student-run, college owned station. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - These templates (which need stations added) are used on college stations in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Deleting 4 of them is just plain silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 12, 2008 @ 06:18
Comment - Updated all but Hawaii's templates. Hawaii only has one College station. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 12, 2008 @ 06:48
  • Speedy Keep as these templates, especially as updated by Neutralhomer, are useful for navigation and all but one no longer match the nomination reason of "single entry". The Hawaii template is useful for navigation and consistency, even with only one entry. - Dravecky (talk) 22:24, 14 October 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:Sustainability 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. The question appears to be "is a sustainability template a good idea?" and most commenters seem to think so. I'm not making any editorial decisions in this closure, that's for folks to figure out on the talk page. delldot ∇. 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted once before and portalized as Portal:Sustainable development. It is horrendously large. I can't find the entry or the discussion, but the portal was created in May 2007. It was recreated on August 15, 2008 using the edit summary "(restoring template)", which was a really bad idea. Apteva (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing from Delete to Keep. Originally this template was too large and complex, but the current version is much better. Johnfos (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, if I recall correctly, I restored a version of the template not so much because I believe it should exist but because I'd found it red-linked somewhere. An acceptable Sustainability template should be possible, as templates and portals (and categories and lists and...) are alternate routes into a topic which need not exclude each other. If there's no consensus on pruning the template, maybe {{Navbox with collapsible sections}} might help? I could try remodelling the template with it if people think that's worthwhile. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think you are missing the point. Sustainability is far too broad a topic to "trim down", and the reason it was portalized was to do it justice. Navblocks are appropriate if there are a manageable number of links, but when there are too many it becomes unworkable. I would not recommend making any changes to the template until you have had a chance to see what others think of this discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'll wait to see what develops here and will only try reformatting the template if there's support. Seems odd, though, if it isn't possible to extract the broader topics in order to make a more compact template. How about

...? (The topics are in alphabetical order, though another order may be more appropriate.) The red-linked "Category:International reports and agreements" would need to be created and populated, but that should be straightforward as the articles required make up list2 in the current template. Alternatively, the red-link could to point to a list rather than a category. A similar category or list could be created and linked for "Sustainable forms of activites or professions" (the current group11). Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Portal:Sustainable development/Topics/Sustainability and energy development might benefit from {{Navbox with collapsible sections}}, especially for the sake of smaller windows/screens, by reclaiming the space currently taken by the first column of groupnames.

Don't delete it makes a reasonably compact overview of a complex area. (More-so than the portal). Zodon (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which version, the trimmed down one or the bloated one? (Note to Sardanaphalus - see why modifying it while the discussion is in progress is unproductive?) Apteva (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re note: Perhaps, but not as a general rule. Sometimes a fresh perspective given by some editing can resolve a discussion. Do you think the single-list template with the qualified title ("Principal") might work, or might there be too much argument about what counts as "principal" topics? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That size navblock is entirely reasonable. I would just use the title "Sustainability", though, as the other words are not necessary and lead to the obvious difficulty that you mentioned. Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of show me, don't tell me - in other words pick out the most important but don't tell me that you are listing the most important. Add in the comments or doc that you are limiting the topics to the most broad to avoid having it get out of hand in the future. I would drop the redlinked list and keep the enviro list - it is hard to imagine a sustainability treaty that did not affect the environment. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My don't delete was for the full one that is currently in the template [1], not the gutted one here. Use of collapsible sections (e.g. for the see also material - related topics/lists), or possibly spinning off part of it might improve it, but basically it strikes a pretty good balance of covering a major topic without being too large. Zodon (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsible sections added to the template.
Further thought - by comparison to the template, the portal is even biger and more complex and isn't as well focused to give an overview of the field. Zodon (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the comments above about not modifying it while discussing. If policy says one shouldn't, sorry, missed that. Otherwise I can see not deleting it while discussion is going on, but other than that it isn't clear why coming up with improvements that may address concerns expressed should be precluded. Zodon (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you modify it while it is under discussion, it makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about. For example, I have no clue which version Johnfos is talking about when they said "but the current version is much better". Putting proposed changes here is fine, but making the changes to the template forces me to look at the time stamp the comment was made, look through the history of the template to find a matching time frame. Just too difficult. Of course it is easy for someone to not see the tfd tag and make an unrelated edit, but making changes based on a discussion in progress is way too confusing. Apteva (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to see anything larger than this. Drilling down to too many levels makes the template unworkable. It takes just as long to download collapsed as it does as one giant navblock. Apteva (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one level to "drill down" (many templates use one level of collapsing).
The template is usually at the end of an article, so most users will be looking at the article while this is downloading. It is less usual to start reading at the bottom of an article. I often use dialup, and multi-column references cause a lot more delay in reading an article than a few extra bytes to download. Zodon (talk) 20:28, 12 October 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:SI base units 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. delldot ∇. 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SI base units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template (which produces a large table) is only used on SI base unit and Category:SI base units: it should be substed into those pages for ease of editing and then deleted Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the justification given for it being in template space is so that it could be used on multiple pages: however, the very size of the table makes it unlikely that it would fit well onto pages other than those where it is already used.Physchim62 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert table to the article. I already removed it from the category. No reason to be in there. --Magioladitis (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Al other templates in Category:SI unit templates should be treated the same way. -- Magioladitis(talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty 06:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty 06:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was that relisted? Isn't it obvious that has to substituted and deleted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All transcluded templates in that category have now been substed. Physchim62 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 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 AU rail accident 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 merge to {{Infobox rail accident}}. delldot ∇. 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AU rail accident (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox rail accident}}. Only used three times. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - as long as all the parameters are still available in {{Infobox rail accident}} I don't mind. Wongm(talk) 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What properties, if any, are in the AU version and not the generic one? I see only "location-dist", "location-dir" and "location-city". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk;Andy's edits 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added those variables while improving the template. They allow you to specify 1) the distance and 2) direction from a 3) notable location/city to give the reader an idea as to where the incident occurred (I took inspiration from {{Infobox Australian Place}} when doing this). This uses {{km to mi}} which may not merge well where miles is the traditional/'native' measurement (as kilometers are in Australia).  SEO75 [talk] 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is consensus, those properties (with suitable adjustment for measurement types) should be added to the generic template.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk;Andy's edits 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep before Merge but not Delete – Have added the Infobox to many more Australian rail accident articles (now 15), and I believe that this Infobox is superior to {{Infobox rail accident}}.  SEO75 [talk] 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think it's "superior"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk;Andy's edits 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In appearance and features (hence my preference to merge before delete, if it would translate, as per above).  SEO75 [talk] 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aesthetic appearance is not, AIUI, a reason to have redundant templates. See above for comments on the features.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk;Andy's edits 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Keep per Seo75. Its now used in the majority of Australian rail incident articles. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Delete. Rail accident aficionados should get together and agree a single infobox for rail accidents. Oz accidents are not different from other countries' accidents. I can see no reason why they should have a distinct template. Proliferation of multiple competing templates is most unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, Delete Seo75 should have added the additional parameters to the generic template. Anyone now can. Aesthetics should also uniformly reflect a consensus. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have "added the additional parameters to the generic template" by now (as in since this TFD was created), or should have at the very beginning?  SEO75 [talk] 23:51, 15 October 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 Trondheim tramway station 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. delldot ∇. 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Trondheim tramway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used seven times only. Redundant ? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is used seven times, and you don't know if it is redundant - why nominate it for deletion? If there is a generic template that can be used instead of this one, go ahead and replace it. Otherwise I don't see the point in nominating this template. --Kildor (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if someone can find a different infobox that offers the same functionally as this one, without reducing the content level, then this discussion can be carried on. Until then, a used, non-replaceable and functional infobox would in no way be considered redundant. Arsenikk (talk) 19:11, 8 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_7&oldid=1138693034"