Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28 edit

Template:Irish Open (golf) venues 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 listify as the best compromise mentioned. JPG-GR (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Open (golf) venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox template. We cannot be having navboxes like this for every single golf tournament, especially when they have no fixed rota. It is just too much. Keeping would only open the door to similar navboxes for other mid level (and low level) tournaments._wjemather ^bigissue 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the Irish Open golf tournament which has been in existence since 1927 and the only European tour event located in Ireland. The template for (British) Open is the model for this template. Golf clubs take great pride in hosting such an event - the grouping of them together in a template identifies those clubs who have reached the highest standard in the country. Your snide comments on this tournament are insulting and unworthy of Wikipedia. PeterClarke 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Open Championship is one of the majors, whereas the Irish Open is not, it is merely a mid-level European Tour event, and not the only one that has been held in Ireland. The (British) Open also has a set rota, so it makes sense to have a navbox template for it's venues, the Irish Open does not have any such rota, so it does not make sense to have a navbox. Certainly, the previous hosts (Adare Manor) paid to host the Irish Open, so any implication that it is a venue of the top order is somewhat questionable, and in any case Wikipedia is not here to award medals for achievement. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Solution: I have got a solution for both of you, which I have to agree with Wjemather that this is a mid level tournament. On the other hand, I do see the reasoing behind making this navbox, but it could be done better in terms of scope. I would have to say you could do a template navbox for all of the golf courses in Ireland, not just one for that one tournament, which is rather narrow in scope. Wjemather is correct in pointing out the validity of the Open Championship courses navbox, which I must say I saw the need in the creation of this because it was getting harder and harder to track back to the article to find the courses. I think you can make a great contribution to wikipedia if you create a navbox's for all the courses in Ireland that are on wikipedia, which will be fun and interesting to see. Go have at it PeterClarke. Talk to you all later! GOLFAUTHORITY 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad idea. WP is not a directory or a place for indiscriminate lists – see WP:NOTDIR and WP:LC. On top of that, most golf courses would fail WP:N. _wjemather^bigissue 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wjemather I have to disagree because I did make it clear later on in my posting on here "navbox's for all the courses in Ireland that are on wikipedia," which means they had better already qualified for nobility. Not just a random assortment, which could be this navbox, too Template:East Lothian Golf Courses! GOLFAUTHORITY 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The categories "golf clubs and courses in x country/state", when used properly, already group together the relevant articles. Having a navbox to do the same when essentially there is nothing other than location to link them is completely unnecessary. "Courses in x town", "courses in x county", "courses in x state", "courses in x region", "courses in x country", "courses in x continent". Where would it stop? Unless there is something special about a particular location then there is definitely no need. Incidentally, East Lothian may well be one such special case. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to a section of Irish Open (golf) and delete. A navbox for venues of a sports tournament is a bad idea for the same reason that a similar category is a bad idea: the information is significant in the context of the article about the sports tournament itself, but is usually just a minor detail in the context of the articles about the venues. A list (stand-alone or in an article section) is the best way to present this information because it avoids cluttering a bunch of articles with what is in many cases a minor fact, not unlike dozens of others contained in every non-stub article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:44, 31 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:Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for template. It is missing four landfall Norbert (second one), , Linda landfall in Sancho Island, as Liza, Tico, and Madeline Mexico landfalls. also, if storm before 1998 do not have pressure readings why does Unamed have a reading? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason to delete the template, I'm going to go through all the tracks and see where updates are needed. Also, there are pressure readings for storms back to 1949, so I don't see your point. Cyclone biskit 14:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Linda did not make landfall, Liza was at 971 mb at landfall (too high for this list), and Tico had no known pressure data at landfall. Madeline may have a case to be on the list, though I haven't the time to look deeply into the issue. Even so, factual errors are meant for the template's talk page or WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and are no reason for deletion. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked on Tico and Madeline. Neither of them have pressure readings upon landfall; as such they are not included in the template. Cyclone biskit 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No reason whatsoever for deletion; issues with the content can be easily addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I see the point of the nominator (in that there isn't a very significant listing of EPAC cyclones by pressure), there is a purpose for it, and CB has added the template to the articles where it could be useful. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Hink, JC, CB, and Runningonbrains.Jason Rees (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to delete when the thing can just be edited to satisfy the nominator's concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of changing all articles involved if a modification is needed means unneccesary much work to do. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:33, 29 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:Fullurl 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. Garion96 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrapper for the parser function {{fullurl:}}. Exists for three weeks now, and is still unused. Intended for editors who mistakenly use template syntax instead of parser function syntax, but it will still fail without a hint at the error if the second parameter is used, which almost always contains an equals sign.
I believe a straight red-linked template link in cases of mistaken use is preferable. Amalthea 07:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, makes sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good logic. -down load ׀ sign! 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed the second parameter so it works for action= and section= so this should cover most cases. M C 10 | Sign here! 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you fixed some, but far from all. And it's hard to cover all since some are defined in scripts and extensions, and not in MediaWiki core. Amalthea 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I got most (or all) of the very commonly used ones. See the code now. M C 10 | Sign here! 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- folks are confused enough about parser functions without creating wrappers for them. One technique is enough to remember.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:32, 6 June 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.