Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

December 4

Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus and please don't rearrange discussions! M a rtinp23 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 11:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete all Per previous discussion, the use of Squad TP only on Current Club squad and World Cup squad. --Matthew_hk t c 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is getting tiresome, but yes, only club and World Cup templates are allowed. DO NOT KEEP Greece even though they won. Punkmorten 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same old same old...per nom.--Seadog^♪ 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not aware of such a policy but will defer to the wisdom of the elders. TSO1D 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per tons of previous related TfDs. --Angelo 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all arguments above. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past TfDs. We can't keep these but have the rest deleted, KaragouniS. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,since there is a campaign by KaragouniS about KEEP..Attention to any admins.Must ^TC 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a template but you can keep the content in a separate article (even without text I would be OK). As a template used for every player, it is cumbersome. A good player would have say 20 such templates making a huge mess of the article.--FocalPoint 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past discussions and deleted templates. – Elisson • T • C • 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep. Greece are the current winners and WP must have a template for the winning squad.--KaragouniS 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Strong keep and Question. Sorry guys, you all seem to be familiar with all this. Care someone direct me to that debate because it strikes me as unorthodox. I tried Matthew's link above, but can't find it. Honestly I don't understand why templates with the names of the soccer players and coaches have to be deleted (not just for the Euro 2004 champions, but even for 3d category local teams). Niko Silver 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mitsos 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --tony esopi patra ^talk 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP respect--Eonwe 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as the greek team is concerned: I think it is important to be included in each player's article that the player in question was a member of the Euro winning squad. This can be done best with this template. Why? I believe that this information can be omitted in further edits of the articles about the players (and will be omitted), but with the template it won't. --CeeKay 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the last competition of euro 2004 so it can be kept until the next euro. We are talking for european champions, so why not to let all european champions template and to keep the worst teams of previous world cups. I do not oppose to put template of other continents' champions. Don't forget that euro is the second most important competitionKRBN 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Those squads are so useful. We must keep them.Hikikomori.hk 13:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment. My vote was based on the assumption that the above assertions were true, but it still makes sense. These aren't current squads, they're historical squads. Meaning that if they're kept and actually used, then a player who played on seven squads that have templates would have those seven templates on his article page, which is obviously not very helpful. We have an article which lays out these squads (in the case of Greece, we have 2004_European_Football_Championship_(team_squads)#Greece). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Oz. Indeed historical teams would create a mess in every player's article. Participating in this historical team, however, IMHO is the most notable thing for all its members (ever). They won the Euro 2004 for Christ's sake! Sorry to have to change my vote to strong keep. If there is more to it, please let me know. I am genuinely interested. I'm also interested in voting for the relevant rules. Niko Silver 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Latvia's also up for deletion. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that. It didn't win anything, and I understand your consideration. I think those two apparently different cases should split. Niko Silver 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:SPAM is not a valid XfD reason. User was unaware and stopped immediately when notified by an admin (unlike someone else...) Niko Silver 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! Focal we are definitely away from winning 20 times the EuroCup! :-) Niko Silver 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Greece is kept, we need to create a guideline regarding the champions of all six confederations (Copa América, UEFA European Football Championship, CONCACAF Gold Cup, African Cup of Nations, AFC Asian Cup, and OFC Nations Cup), as well as the Confederations Cup itself. Neier 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be bad for some reason? Niko Silver 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My plan: User:Matthew hk/sandbox/List of UEFA U-21 Football Champions. No squad in players articles pls. Matthew_hk t c 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a list of champions, that is a good idea. The same info/format could be on the main page of the article for that particular tournament (specific year). I'm of the opinion that for each of the major cups, a roster page for all teams is encyclopedic, but, it should have more info than these templates. That is why pages like 2006 FIFA World Cup squads are good. On player articles, we can link to the appropriate team on each squads page, like a link to 2006 WC on Ronaldo's page, etc. Neier 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another compromise, would be to limit the template to the current champion of each major competition (like, the current members of a club team). This is not as elegant as simply deleting the whole mess, and linking to full articles on the squads, though. Neier 00:08, 9 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Segaproj

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete

Martinp23 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sega WikiProject has since been put under the CVG project and reduced to the Sega Work Group. I just orphaned the template, and it should be deleted as being obselete. --Hbdragon88 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphan. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 11:13, 7 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

NYSRInt templates

Decision was delete all

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all M a rtinp23 20:04, 14 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:QED

Decision was no consensus

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus M a rtinp23 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard, idiosyncratic mish-mash of marginally related material. Original research. --linas 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template's purpose is unclear, and it probably cannot be revised into a useful form. Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See if the content can be revised first. —David618 ^t e 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some stuff needs to be removed, but so what? Deletion isn't meant to be used as a sword to force people to do cleanup now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its fundamentally misguided. No amount of cleanup can save this beast. There's a good reason for why this and dozens of other templates just like this have been deleted. Not to be rude, but have you actually computed a Feynmann diagram ever, even once in your life? If not, please don't vote. linas 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. One, you're not supporting your opinion, just stating it which is rather annoying. And two, computing a Feynmann diagram has no bearing on TfD discussions, even were it true that I haven't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you're trying to pick a fight. Please don't. It raises everyones stress levels. These types of templates are categorically bad. This type of vote for nav-box templates has come up a number of times before in the physics and math communities and they have always gone down in flames (rightfully so). Its a waste of time to recap the issues, its been discussed ad nauseum; my nomination was meant to be a quickie, not an essay. You may ref the archives to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for the multiple discussions on this class of templates. And two: computing a Feynmann diagram has a high degree of bearing on this TfD. There are a lot of trolls in WP who have absolutely no idea of what they are taking about, and yet feel compelled to edit. That type of behaviour pattern drives away the good editors who actually know the subject matter. If you have no knowledge of quantum field theory, you should not be editing articles on quantum field theory. (Or voting on this TfD). linas 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amarkov.--HowardSF-U-T-C- 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. This is not just random clutter, but clutter of the worst kind. If you clean up the template by removing each link that is acutely unhelpful, an empty template is left. --Lambiam^Talk 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... no you don't. You get the particles, and two or three about the quantum framework. That's short, but it isn't empty. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are the articles about the "quantum framework"? Which are the articles that are essential to QED, and which are peripheral? I think more than "it can be fixed" is needed from people voting to keep; these people also need to provide specific proposals on how to rewrite this template so that it is useful. Otherwise, this discussion will be repeated in another few months when someone else finds this template, sees that it is a disorganized hodge-podge of topics, and nominates it for deletion again. Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better to have a page of "key topics in QED" (probably in the main QED article, if it's not there already) and another page of "important QED processes" for the Moller scattering and whatnot. We don't need this template on every article kind of related to QED. No offense to the template creator; just my opinion. HEL 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is enough outside of my field of physics that I've never heard of a handful of the things in the template, but I just wanted to say that I usually lean against these kinds of footer boxes for this kind of subject. Better to link to the appropriate concepts in the lead, or somewhere else obvious, where you can explain the relationship between the topics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:13, 6 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

December 4

Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004

Delete

Keep

Comment

Template:Segaproj

NYSRInt templates

Template:NYSRInt

Template:NYSRIntTop

Template:NYSRIntLegend

Template:NYSRIntBottom

Template:QED