Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29 edit

Template:Infobox Frankfurt Stadtteil 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Frankfurt Stadtteil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox for use in the articles about the Stadtteil of Frankfurt am Main. The current revision of the template uses Infobox settlement as a backend, and could be easily substituted. The regional terminology from the original revision was not altered.Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before yesterday this wasn't a wrapper for Infobox settlement, but an independent template. The conversion apparently hasn't been completed yet, there are still several things to be fixed in the transcluding articles if the template continues to use Infobox settlement. See for instance Eschersheim (Frankfurt am Main). I would rather suggest converting the template to (a wrapper for) the {{Infobox German location subdivision}}, since it has the same look and feel as the {{Infobox German location}}. Markussep ^Talk 11:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the previous version of the template used commas in the population field, even by using Infobox German location subdivision you would have the same problem.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the commas, what I mean is that you should have cleaned up infobox errors after you edited the template. I think the procedure is a bit strange: you converted the template to a wrapper for Infobox settlement on 29 September, and the same day you proposed it for deletion, because it's only a wrapper for Infobox settlement. I haven't seen any prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Frankfurt or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Anyway, my preference would be that both the Frankfurt infobox and the Infobox German location subdivision are integrated into Infobox German location, since that's customized for German locations. Markussep ^Talk 08:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example: this is what the infobox would look like when using Infobox German location: User:Markussep/sandbox, compare the present article Heddernheim (Frankfurt am Main). Markussep ^Talk 09:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrate and then delete, also 'my' German location subdivision. I created the subdivision template, because—as stated on the German location/doc (currently there is no such statement)—the {{Infobox German location}} template shouldn't be used for subdivisions. After the problems had been addressed, you can delete both templates. Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If noone objects I will replace the present infoboxes for Stadtteile of Frankfurt with Infobox German location. I will move information that can't be used in the new infobox to the text. I think Infobox German location subdivision can easily be converted into a wrapper for Infobox German location, we can decide what to do with it (substitute, delete) later. Markussep ^Talk 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all Stadtteile have Infobox German location now. Markussep ^Talk 20:15, 5 October 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:Infobox Brazilian Political Party 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Brazilian Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Infobox political party}}. Few uses. Same case with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_21#Template:Infobox_Chilean_Political_Party and others. Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 20:01, 6 October 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:Country 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 speedy delete. For orphaned deprecated templates please use T3 next time. Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is deprecated since November 2007 in favor of {{Flag}}, and even has no code left! Debresser (talk) 21:03, 29 September 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:Railway stations in India 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway stations in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blank template that has been in existence for over two months. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this should be speedied, it's been out there for so long, I couldn't figure out if it was speediable. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the template is an instance of the template itself, creating an unusable loop. Not sure if there is a speedy criterion for that. Maybe G1 (no meaningful content)? --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the guy with the letters and numbers. --JaGa^talk 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually tag such templates with {{db-g2}} and they always get speedily deleted. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 29 September 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:6teen 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:6teen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 3 articles well-linked to each other. Magioladitis (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said to keep this navbox a while back, but that was when there were more article links in there. Since the main characters' articles were merged into the List of characters on 6teen page and the template was edited to reflect this, there are now too few links in the navbox to warrant keeping it. Creativity-II (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have TFD'd the template back when I submitted the character articles for deletion, but it slipped by me, and I forgot about it. Thanks for cleaning up. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 3 October 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 Fresh Prince of Bel-Air 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 3 articles that are well-linked to each other.(Actors section has to be removed). Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I've argued before, I think including actors in the navbox is OK, if there are enough other articles to justify a navbox for the show. In this case there are not. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919.--Guyane (talk) 04:20, 6 October 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:Gary unmarried 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gary unmarried (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A tv show navbar with links only to actors. I would speedy it if there was a rule to cover it. Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TV show navbox with no closely related articles to justify it (just cast). --RL0919 (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:41, 3 October 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:Infobox Hungarian settlement 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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary and redundant template made in the last few days used in 7 articles. We use a standard infobox in thousands of articles and they do not need to be replaced by a new template. Detroiterbot did a lot of work in the past helping adding infoxes to make them consistent. Here is how this Hungarian language template looks in articles see this. If you want to copy infoboxes from Hungarian wikipedia with minimal fuss, please propose a bot to do so which places the infobox in infobox settlement as with the others.It would be much more efficient to request a bot to copy them from Hungarian wikipedia than copying the Hungarian language boxes directly as it means many more edits will be needed later to convert them to standard english boxes. A bot should have bene used to generate the French commune articles and would have saved years of celanup too. Hopefully user Kotniski can at least sort out the remaining French infoboxes, maybe there is somebody else to sort out Hungary too. Himalayan 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at it initially I was concerned that it would be used to undo and replace the hard work I and MJCdetroit did a while back in adding standard infoboxes. If the template is used to only copy infoboxes directly from Hungarian wiki and they will be replaced later then it isn't so bad. But I would say getting a bot to transfer it first time would be much more efficient. Besides which, Romanian wikipedia is notoriously bad in terms of accuracy, Romanians on here such as User:Dahn have said this and I have experienced it myself when finding info about Romanian communes. The data on Romanian wiki is often false and a mess. I don't know if Hungarian wiki is the same but I would exercise extreme caution in copying data and info from these wikipedias. It would be better to use infobox settlement and then use a reliable population source to reference the data, like I'm doing with Romanian communes at present. Himalayan 15:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (creator of the template) Absolute nonsense, and Himalayan has only got notice of it because I said so, being I hope a good Wikipedian and trying to make things better.

I created this specifically because Infobox settlement does not work. Its documentation is rubbish so one does not know whether to put in, for example, a plain number or a formatted number. Fields in the article that are documented to work do not. For example for population_blank_title it says look at Windsor, Ontario which does not use it.

Look at the history of the template and see how much struggle I had with it. Multiply it by 10,000 or whatever number you choose, every editor who uses the Infobox settlement has to go through the same struggle. I say keep. It is used in 7 articles and Magyar telepus infobox is used in a few more, which is based on it. These are perhaps temporary but long term temporary.

We are trying to make the encyclopaedia better and if we can by using a template then good for that. I am not making a translation engine, but there are 17 counties and 3 regions and 2 large areas by the NUTS classifcation. That is within the realm of a template. You may notice at NUTS of Hungary I have put the Hungarian names, this is no accident, it is because THE MAP HAS HUNGARIAN NAMES ON IT. Now I downloaded the maps and am working to put them in English. But while I do they will be in Hungarian. I am not making it worse I am mmaking it better at each change, see WP:OWNFEET.

You might as well delete all of the Hungarian geographical name conversion templates. I have discussed this at Template talk:Convert, at Infobox Settlement (with no response), at many other places. I have asked a stalwart of the Convert template to mentor me on these conversions, how they fit, if they are suitable, and so on. Most Hungary articles do not, for example, express units in US Customary/Imperial. Ours as we edit them do. That is making it better (and look at WP:MOSNUM about how we do things with numbers in English Wikipedia).

It is quite frankly ridiculous to delete this on the whim of one editor who does not understand the logic or motive for this, which is to make the articles more consistent, add and translate content, and so on. See Abony, Acsa, Sulysap, Tura, Hungary NUTS of Hungary and whatever else you like. They use the templates because it puts it in one central place. I am more than happy to discuss whether the templates could be better, but to delete? No, never. It will break articles for no good purpose, and many more too. What good would come of it? Let them stand. SimonTrew (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Himalayan chose is a stub. It shows, in fact, that the template works. I deliberately added it against an article that had no information at all, so now at least it has a basic infobox. With fields in Hungarian, and it puts it into English and does conversion into US Customary/Imperial. So what is not to like? Himalayan chose the example by saying, more or less, it is an empty article. But articles grow and the article itself was made several years ago. Now I am jsut adding to it, and with my Hungarian girlfriend we do three or four a week, she translates the Hungarian and I do the fixup and we discuss the best translation. We are making it better. I also for example at Tura, Hungary there is no content to speak of yet but there will be in a day or so, but well astonishingly it is already linked to twin towns and I added on the twinning articles and edited on the twin towns' articles in their own WPs. Yeah, really useless that is? Or am I trying to be a good Wikipedian? I am not saying it is perfect. I am saying it is better. SimonTrew (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

' Strong keep Template:Magyar település infobox which is listed here under this section. Laziness on the part of the lister not even to give it its own section, and not to notify me as its creator that it was suggested for deletion. I am inclined to assume bad faith.

But the argument above applies, only moreso. It is used and it works. What good comes of deleting it? If you do, it breaks articles. If you keep it, it improves them. Keep. SimonTrew (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness? I've edited thousands of Hungarian articles in a standard format working with MJC detroit and started most of the articles on towns we have on here from Hungary long before you joined wikipedia. You've added your template to what, 7 articles? Absolute nonsense? You are the one implying this by your obviously incorrect statements that "infobox settlement doesn't work". It works in tens of thousands of articles. Rather some minor annoyance or incapacity to edit it in exactly the way you wanted jaded your view of it and led you to create a redundant template. If you compare you infobox in Abony and compare that to User:Himalayan Explorer/Hungary you are basically recreating an almost identical template just because you haven't taken the time to understand how the infobox used in 99% of other Hungarian articles works. There is abolustely no information in the current infobox that cannot simply be addressed in the standard template so your template is redundant and unnecessary. The infoboxes can simply be referenced in the way yours is too. No english speaking editor is going to want to come across this and try to figure out how to tidy it up by adding the photo at the top of the infobox and understand the Magyar. Himalayan 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose something for deletion it would be courtesy to tell the creator of the article that you had. So if you have been wikipeding before I ever existed, you well know that. So it is either laziness or downright rudeness. Never mind. Mr Farmbrough has had an intelligent discussion about this and he sees the point of them and I have suggested to him, as I have to you, about whether we change field names and how to move it forward. I thank you for getting the articles in, and I know also that most of them are stubs and blanks. Rich's bot has converted a couple of hundred over, to my surprise, because it works. I have followed what I can perceive are the rules, for example editing numerous articles to get rid of e.g. Pest (county) where Pest County seems to be the preferred use. I have made templates for {{Hungarian county name}} and {{Hungarian county seat name}} and so forth, to do the back translation. These all use {{lang}} to mark it as Hungarian in the English wikipedia. So that is what takes the time, because we do not just slap something in, we take care to edit, fix links, add references, things that are obvious to a Hungarian may not be to an English speaker, so I ask who is that? Do we need a reference for that? Which is why it takes half a day to do an article and not five minutes by being a bot. Bots definitely have their uses, and I stopped Rich Farmbrough's because I was unsure what his aim was. I know damned well he is a bloody good editor and has very good faith. I stopped it to achieve consensus. I think we are well aware now (I certainly am) what his aim and purpose is, so start SmackBot again and let's get on making Wikipedia better. SimonTrew (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. These are just wrappers, translating the Magyar should be fairly simple, there are a limited number of articles where they will be used. Simon is not proposing to retrofit them to already infoboxed articles. They use the same or very similar parameter names to Settlement and can be switched out fairly easily when the exercise is complete. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You are half right and half wrong with propsing to retrofit. The opinion of one editor (guess who) is that the English ones look nicer than the Hungarian. They do actually have more information in them, and actually we have then put that information back into Hungarian WP after doing so (and then checked Croatian, Italian, etc). [{Template:Infobox Hungarian county]], for example, I have a newer one at User:SimonTrew/Infobox Hungarian county2 which does the fixup and so forth. This is playing and not used on any articles in article space. But it means that you don't need to say for example what region it is in, cos it can work that out for itself (using {{Hungarian county region name}}). And all those templates are well documented and have test cases. The only two that don't are the infoboxes, because it is still under discussion what to do with them. When it is settled, I will document those better, too. For example you don't need to put east or north in those templates in the coordinates, because Hungary is east and north of the equator and prime meridian. So it knows that and does it for itself. The more we give to other editors, the less time they spend on fixup and the more they can improve articles instead of worrying about the petty details. SimonTrew (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe this nom was a little premature. At a later date I am pretty sure Andy and Plastikspork would be keen to convert for maintenance purposes once your work on them is done. That way they will be standardised with the rest of them that I and MJCdetroit worked on. BTW Rich isn't a bot. He uses AWB. In a lot of cases particularly for this purpose it would be much more efficient using a coded bot and would save having to do a series of corrections many times. If Rich was using a bot then he could have trasnferred the lot for you first time directly into english settlement infoboxes. As it is he has done a good work as an initial stage, that is providing a map and some referenced data which they needed. They can be converted later. It is only intended as a makeshift template to aid you in making it easier to transfer much needed information from Hungarian wiki, I'm sure Rich agrees in part... Himalayan 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Himalayan, Rich and myself are all agreed these serve a purpose and for now should not be deleted. I am more than happy to help with the conversion into standard templates if that is done later. The discussion here has been split rather too much maybe between my user talk, Himalayan's. and RichFarmbrough's, but I think on the whole we are agreed they are worth keeping for now and do something a little later? Would that be the consensus?

My very best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:40, 2 October 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:Note0 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Note0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was marked on 10 August 2009 as deprecated, and this is true, the explanation on the template notwithstanding. It hasn't been edited only on the day of its creation, 14 June 2007, which would indicate it has never been used much (if at all). Since we use other similar templates like {{Ref}}, I feel sure this one can be deleted. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, seemingly abandoned, and redundant to much more widely used citation methods. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 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:Sora Kake Girl 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sora Kake Girl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created by an inexperienced user unfamiliar with established guidelines of WP:ANIME about separate character articles set out in WP:MOS-AM#Characters. The user attempted to create additional articles branched out of the main article, but as these have now been merged, there is no reason to have this template, what with there being only 1 article. 十八 05:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navbox with only one real article linked (plus one link to what is obviously the wrong article). --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a navbox will ever be warranted for this particular series, and it certainly isn't now, with literally only one relevant linked article. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:19, 30 September 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:Rosie Rushton 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 for now as progress is being made to create the red-linked articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rosie Rushton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every link is red, including the author's. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to not have much of a purpose. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy or delete~~. Since this is just a few days old, it is possible that the editor who created it intends to build out the articles as well, in which case the template could just go into her userspace until enough of the articles are created to justify it. If she doesn't plan on building the articles, then it should just be deleted. I left the editor a personal note underneath the standard notification on her talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC) See update below. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to write articles, which are red-linked on this template. Anne14 (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC+1)

Keep. Changing my position based on Anne14's progress in filling out the articles. The main article and a half dozen others are already created, so it seems that there will be enough articles to justify a navbox. If article creation stalls, the box can always be trimmed down to remove any remaining redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 3 October 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.