Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 18

< May 17	May 19 >

May 18 edit

Template:Jimmy Petruzzi 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.

This was an AfC submission so I have moved it to project space where it belongs and where it will very likely be rejected. --— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimmy Petruzzi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a template, this is an article. And worse, we already have an article Jimmy Petruzzi. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we had such an article. But if that article was a copy-vio, than perhaps this is too. Needs looking into. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article is now called Jimmy Petruzziello. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - prompt delete.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (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.

Panama flag 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 discussion was delete all. JPG-GR (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were all created by the now indef-blocked MRDU08 (talk · contribs), for use in articles such as Realmente Bella Señorita Panamá 2008. However, several of those images were copyright violations (which is what got MRDU08 into trouble) and have been removed, rendering those flag templates almost useless. Also, there is longstanding consensus at WP:WikiProject Flag Template not to create flag templates with "invented" three letter codes. Typically, those template names are used for standard ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes (such as {{PAN}}) for country flags only, and if subnational flags are needed, a country data template is created for use with {{flag}} and {{flagicon}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously they violate a community consensus. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:51, 24 May 2009 (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:Ongoing weather 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 discussion was delete, with no prejudice toward Black Falcon's suggestion of the addition of a parameter to {{Current}}. JPG-GR (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing weather (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template for articles about "ongoing meteorological event or phenomenon(s)", which warns our readers that "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." Looking at the three articles it is used on currently, I don't see any rapid change at all.[1][2][3] I've tried to apply the guidelines from Template:Current to this template, but I (and others) have been reverted numerous times. So I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Template:Ongoing weather, and received not a single reply. So here I am. This is a template that, apparently, doesn't need to obey the guidelines from Template:Current, yet it adds articles to Category:Current events. It warns our readers of "rapidly" changing articles, yet no rapid change is going on. And it informs our readers of the fact that an article is an "ongoing meteorological event or phenomenon" on articles that are called 2009 Pacific typhoon season or 2009 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. So, in short, the template serves no purpose whatsoever. (And before you say that we need to warn our readers of possible danger: a) That's not what the template does at all, and b) That's what Template:Current disaster is for.) --Conti|✉ 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Its purpose is to be more specific about the event. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
- More specific than what? Shouldn't the article itself be "more specific", if it's not already specific enough? I'm not sure I understand your point. --Conti|✉ 17:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A to the point, usefull template! Debresser (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on the usefulness of the template? --Conti|✉ 17:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By all means. I suppose we are all familiar with the idea behinf the {{Current}} template. Actually there are another 5 more specific templates, of which this is one (see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Since_.2F_from). In meteorology there are events that have rapid changes in information. What comes to mind first and foremost are the big hurricanes. Do I have to remind you of Hurricane Katrina and the commotion and international new coverage surrounding it? Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, and do I have to remind you that Hurricane Katrina actually used Template:Current instead of this one? :) Yes, I very much understand the idea behind Template:Current, which is exactly why I don't see the point in this template. And yes, there definitely are rapidly changing and noteworthy meteorological phenomenons, but they aren't common enough to have a template just for them. Template:Current can deal with the few cases a year quite well. Do you think that 2009 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, 2009 Pacific hurricane season and 2009 Pacific typhoon season should have a template right now, warning our readers of of the rapidly changing nature of the articles? If so, why? --Conti|✉ 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If your argument is that {{Current}} is enough, well, that is an argument. We also have specific templates for events, persons, deaths, spaceflights, and weather. I personally like the diversity and remain with my keep. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is also the point made by the previous user. That's what he meant "specific": a template specifically for meteorological phenomena, in addition to the general template. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't mind this template so much if it would actually be used the way it is supposed to be used. But I tried applying the guidelines and got reverted, more often than not without a comment, even. --Conti|✉ 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Next time you get reverted, call me in. I'll have a look. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a key word that you seem to be missing "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." It doesn't meant that there has to be constant changing to the article but it would be rather annoying to have to keep removing and replacing the template every time a new system formed, so we just keep it there, and when a storm is threatening land, the template is changed to reflect that. I don't really see how you find this to be an issue other than being really stingy with the rules. Cyclonebiskit 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument comes up at each and every discussion about such templates. You're right, information may change rapidly. But information may change rapidly at every article at any time. Should we therefore add a current-event template to every article for all eternity, so we don't need to bother adding it when information actually does change rapidly? If not, why should we treat meteorological articles any differently? I find this to be an issue because, ideally, articles should be free of templates that warn our readers of something (be it a current event or NPOV problems, etc.), and temporal templates are supposed to be temporal, and I don't consider 6 months to be "temporal". --Conti|✉ 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case the event is current, the information might not change as rapidly as you feel an article with a current template on should be but technically they are current events. I think you're taking this a bit too far by saying that since currently active meteorological events (some of which last an entire year) have current event templates, that all articles should because the template states that the information could rapidly change. FWIW, what are you really trying to achieve by removing this template that no one else really seems to have a problem with (or at least not enough of a problem to make a stink about it). Cyclonebiskit 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's somewhat confusing, but the general definition of a "current event" and the Wikipedia definition of the same term are quite different. The above mentioned articles are current events by the former definition, but not the latter. See Template:Current for the guidelines on which articles should use the template (and therefore be added to the Current Events category). To use an extreme example, 2009 (the year) is a current event, technically speaking, but it's not a current event by our definition, and no one would think of adding the (or any) current event template to that article. Also keep in mind that the current event template(s) were created to warn our readers of rapid changes. They were not created to merely inform our readers of something being a current event. So a current event template on an article that is not changing rapidly and will not be changing rapidly in the near future is, frankly, pointless.
      What I'm trying to achieve? I'm trying to consistently apply the guidelines for current event templates to current event templates. :) I could just as well ask why you care so much to keep a template like this one on a few articles. Is it that important to you? --Conti|✉ 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, that makes much more sense. I'm still opting to keep the template but now that you clarified what you're trying to do it seems rather silly to have those templates currently on. IMO, they should be up when a storm (named storm or depression) is active. So at the moment, the template in question should not be in use. Cyclone biskit 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad we agree on that, at least. :) Any help in actually applying the guidelines would be much appreciated. --Conti|✉ 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this template is particularly useful. Meteorological phenomena aren't the type of things to generally change extremely rapidly, necessitating a warning template. In the rare circumstances that they are (major hurricanes and so on) the ordinary {{current}} template can be used, and it should be obvious from the lead of the article anyway. Robofish (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ that Meteorological events don't change rapidly. Events such as tornado outbreaks change extremely fast, sometimes things change every few minutes. Cyclone biskit 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to agree with Cyclonebiskit. Meteorological events are far more likely to rapidly change than, say, space missions or Ida. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It serves its specific purpose; I see no compelling reason for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This information should be in the lead and body of the article. I don't think readers are that dumb that they need to see a template instead of just reading the article. For the few cases where it could be usable {{current}} is sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the ordinary {{current}} can be used, and it should only be used when there is a significant storm occurring. If there is a minor tropical storm in the middle of nowhere, then it is unlikely the article will change too much. In fact, because the season articles are the same every year, there is little chance for any significant change, as the format is always the same. It's not like we would expect a warning tag on the 2009 article page that the year article might change significantly once worldwide events happen. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, you're saying a season article won't change throughout the year? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course a season article would change throughout the year. However, if a person visited it on September 1st, and again on September 20th, it wouldn't change significantly, since the format is very basic and doesn't change much. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I completely disagree. If a reader visited the article nearly a month later, there would surely be new storms, more info, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but it wouldn't be vastly different. There is an established format for the season article, and anyone visiting it twice in two weeks during the season would see largely the same article. The information doesn't change rapidly, as the template suggests, rather gradually. Check out last year's AHS article from September 1 and September 20. Much of the content is the same, except for any new storms, and even the new storms are handled the same way as the old storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template should be in the Hurricane seasons articles as long as the seasons are active. Actually a hurricane tropical cyclone season is current as long as it is active. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to sound rude, but did you even read my nomination, this discussion or the guidelines at Template:Ongoing weather? Do you know the general purpose of a current event template? --Conti|✉ 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEP! Ths template is needed because, although no storms are active now, ya never know whether or not one will form as soon as today or tomorrow or not. Ths template doesn't involve currently active storms; it just says the season is ongoing, and info may be changing as the season goes on, as of the month it says. 76.235.221.51 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.235.187.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{current}} and/or {{current disaster}}, depending on the situation. In all honesty I dislike our guidelines for use of {{current}}, but that's not really the real issue in this case (and I'm never winning that argument anyway). BryanG (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who is against this is missing the point we're making. It says Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. We are not saying that information is changing as we speak; we are saying it may change sometime in the future. It is changed to reflect currently active storms once one forms. 76.235.187.171 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.235.187.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep adds good specificitySallyRide (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of adding a "weather=yes" parameter to {{current}} to generate the same text. I feel that, ultimately, this template is redundant to {{current}} and/or {{current disaster}}, depending on the situation. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (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:Mount Holyoke College fields of study 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mount Holyoke College fields of study (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Navbox advertising?. Advertising. No other reason for a list of majors. Also, unrelated topics. College no more related to History et cetera than to Commencement or Residence hall. Request delete. King of the Arverni (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary, unhelpful, and unrelated. I don't quite agree that it's advertising but aforementioned reasons are ample reason to delete the template. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe it is advertising per se, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory such as a list of majors at one particular college/university. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we do not want to do; this is why colleges have web sites. DGG (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above, plus good sense.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. This is common information that could be found on the school's website and which, as MCB noted above, is just functioning as an indiscriminate collection of information here on WP. Esrever ^(klaT) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (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:Syria U20 Squad 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syria U20 Squad 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:FOOTY consensus is to only create navboxes for senior national team squads from FIFA or Confederation championship tournaments. This navbox is for a youth tournament which does not even connote notability for participants under WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per proir consensus at WP:FOOTY King of the North East 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' all team templates like this, senior team or not, and this sure is not. Reso lute 03:22, 21 May 2009 (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:WikiMapia 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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is redundant as the service is already listed on the mapsource page at reached through coordinates specified with {{coord}}. -- User:Docu 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete: it's redundant all right; there are still 1004 references to it. —EncMstr (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, possibly after replacing it with {{coord}} on the few pages that don't already have it and on which it belongs. --NE2 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or improve. Not sure why its up for deletion. It seems convenient with good information.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's redundant to {{GeoTemplate}}'s many mapping services provided. GeoHack is invoked through the tool server via the URLs constructed by {{coord}}. For example, click on this 45°40′N 123°27′W / 45.67°N 123.45°W / 45.67; -123.45, and see WikiMapia amongst other known suitable mapping services and data sets. —EncMstr (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikmapia seems to be convenient and can be made into a city specific template. How is that redundant? Can you illustrate the same convenience with the other service as a template?Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template". For most articles, having a link to WikiMapia in the "External links" section just adds to clutter. Coordinates generated by {{coord}} are prominent in the article and clicking on them leads users to a page with more options than just one link to WikiMapia. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (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:2005 dengue outbreak tally 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 discussion was substituted and deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 dengue outbreak tally (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used only in the article 2005 dengue outbreak in Singapore; since there are currently no other appropriate articles in which it could be used, it should be substed into that article. On the other hand, it seems strange for a template for so many countries with data from 2006 and "2007 dengue outbreak" as the header to be included in an article about an outbreak in 2005 in just one country, so perhaps it should be deleted altogether. (Template creator notified using {{tfdnotice}}.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Probably worth keeping in this one article, but not worth keeping as a template unless it can be used elsewhere. Robofish (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2009 (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:The Paradiso Girls 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 discussion was G8 per Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Paradiso Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is an adjunct to The Paradiso Girls, which was recently deleted per AfD due to insufficient notability. No other substantive transclusions exist. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need to have a topic template for a topic that is not yet sufficiently notable. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G8 Dependent on deleted parent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've speedied per G8. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (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.