Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8

< March 7	March 9 >

March 8

Template:Infobox Marist High School

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 John Reaves (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to templates that already exist. --evrik ^(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...you say redundant to templates that already exist but you do not name the templates? That is very 'professional'. Why don't you name the infoboxes first that you so highly speak of. -23_PatPeter*∞ 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, okay, how about {{Infobox School}}; also {{Infobox High School}} ... those shouldn't have been too hard for you to find. And there's no need to get so disagreeable when someone points out something you did wrong. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What wrong did I do? My Infobox has more information than your {{Infobox School}} or {{Infobox High School}}, not necesarrily more in the case that {{school}} has 24 possible entires, {{high school}} has 12 entires, and {{Infobox Marist High School}} but that we should rather merge them.

And, yes, there is a need to become disagreeable when someone tries to delete a template for no reason (I knew where those templates were, I'm not an idiot, but evrik ^(talk) did not cite his reasons.) -23_PatPeter*∞ 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually, your box might have some info that could be merged with {{Infobox High School}}, which is why I am changing my vote. Note however that {{Infobox School}} has "free labels" that you can use to be more specific to your school, which still makes this one redundant. Perhaps we should just add some free labels to the High School infobox. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- redundant. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I guess we could merge some of it with {{Infobox High School}}, but as I said above it's still redundant to {{Infobox School}}, which has "free labels". -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Please use the standardized templates for better maintainability, as there is no drastic difference with this template. –Pomte 11:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made in good faith, but its function is covered by {{school}}. Gracenotes ^T § 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per redundancy and Gracenotes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep until {{Infobox Marist High School}} is merged with {{school}} and {{High school}} -23_PatPeter*∞ 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to keep until merged, that's what the holding cell is for —MJCdetroit 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you enter the free_labels do you just put "| free_label1 =" or something like that? I mean Fight Song Composer is definitly a free label but some of the others are more universal, and I would agree on adding those. And I do agree with you guys our goal should be to limit the amount of templates and use existing ones. -23_PatPeter*∞ 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

| free_label = Fight song composer

| free_text = Composer's Name

| free_label2 = Military

| free_text2 = Military Name

This is only for {{school}}, not {{high school}}, as the latter was recently created. I think {{high school}} should actually be deleted so you're probably better off using {{school}}. If you would like to add universal fields, please discuss them and any other issues at Template talk:Infobox School. –Pomte 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should only use one universal template for schools, that is why I made this template because there are 10 other templates for school, the only problem is I do not think that school has a picture option, along with other things, but that would definitely be the template. -23_PatPeter*∞ 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that all transclusions of this template have now been converted to use other templates, and the template itself is orphaned. I'd suggest that this nomination can safely be closed as a delete now. (And yes, that's what the holding cell is for; to hold templates that people want to delete but can't until they're orphaned.) --ais523 12:55, 19 March 2007 (U T C)

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:User_Kim_Possible

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 Speedy delete by AuburnPilot per author request. —dgies^t_c 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this box in template space but I have moved it to User space. No links. — Randall Bart 19:21, 8 March 2007 (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:Oligarchs

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 Mart inp23 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure POV, no hard criteria for inclusion. A bunch of rich influential Russians and ex-Russians in wildly different circumstances. And, of course, "Oligarch" is a loaded term fraught with implications. Delete. --- NYC JD (make a motion) 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree dude. Though I understand where you are coming from. But I think its not just about knowing a bunch of rich russians. This is very unique example of how a certain group of people have exploited the national strategic industry amid social and political changes.

I have created this template not to complement or dennounce a group of rich men. I have created this so when someone is reading about one economic exploiters, he or she can see other examples of this at the bottom of the page. In my view, this certain group of poeple should be linked to one another because of their remarkebly similar rise to power - acquiring vast strategic assests through political exploitation. Many thanks -- Ash sul 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have reasons or making the template, but how do you decide who belongs on the template and who is simply rich? —dgies^t_c 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. If we consider rich and (at some point) politically powerful people oligarchs, some of the people mentioned there don't deserve inclusion (as they have never enjoyed considerable political influence in the former Soviet Union - e.g. Gaydamak and Makhmudov have no proven political weight in Russia, while Chubais, being politically influential, has his wealth estimations based on rumors), while some clearly relevant people which are not included do. But this would be a very debatable matter inappropriate for a template. I think that something like categorization of the people as both Category:Russian billionaires and Category:Russian politicians should be prerequisite for inclusion. It is also poorly structured and the people are not directly related to each other, so we hardly need a template here at all. A category would be more than enough, and its coverage would be much more easy to correct in one step, while with a template we need two steps at least (modifying articles + modifying the template). Colchicum 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, BLP issues, heavy POV. MaxSem 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular slow delete - POV is not a speedy deletion criteria. BLP only applies for attack pages (WP:CSD#G10), but "oligarch" has positive connotations too. Lastly I think calling it WP:CSD#T1 is a bit of a stretch. That being said, unless we have attributable references for everyone on the list saying they are an oligarch, then it's contested unsourced POV. —dgies^t_c 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia word "oligarch" have definitely negative connotations. MaxSem 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't consider it a glowing compliment, but it does imply wealth and power, which are usually seen as good. —dgies^t_c 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's about same criteria as listing people on Business oligarch. Political/state power combined with business ownership. There are numerous articles with oligarchs ratings. It can be possible to add limit for inclusion in template description "List top 20 xUSSR oligarchs by their all-time high net worth". Those people are well-known as oligarchs. In case if community will decide to delete navigation box - it's a must to replace it with list or category. --TAG 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Unnecessary, POV, & original research, as seen from author's explanations here. `'mikka 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - The list is consisted of individuals historicaly and still regularly refered to as oligarchs in media all over the world, including Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. I don't think its a POV issue, as they are portrayed positively or negatively depending on indiavidual media's political POV. But the term "Oligarch" has always been used to define these individuals. I don't think just any old rich person with similar circumstances (e.g. - political exploitation) would necessarily qualify as an oligarch. But certainly these group of people from the former Soviet Union will always be regarded as "Oligarchs", regardless of their media portrait of "good" or "bad". -- Ash sul 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A template to list people should only be used if there are objective criteria as to who qualifies and who doesn't qualify for the template. If people are reading about one oligarch and want to find out who else is considered an oligarch, they should go to Business oligarch, as opposed to having a template that associates all these people without definitive criteria for inclusion or exclusion. --Metropolitan90 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1ne 02:32, 16 March 2007 (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:Television colour

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 Withdraw per the comment below. Stickeylabel 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Television colour should be deleted. The template is designed to increase the difficulty to alter a television articles infobox background colour. It does not serve a purpose that wasn't already being performed. There are no links to the template accessible for wikipedians, and there is no mention of the template on television talk pages. An inaccessible template that also employs complicated and esoteric features of template syntax, thats primary purpose is for a simple function that was easily accessible with the Infobox Television template, does not belong on Wikipedia. Stickeylabel 13:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - result of months of a long conversation to avoid colour abuse in templates. Matthew 13:10, 8 March 2007 (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.

All national team Squad TP other than World Cup

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. anthonycfc ^[talk] 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already discussed before (October 17, November 13, November 17, November 21, November 30, December 4, December 12, Deletion review December 21, February 6) Pre previous TFD, the result is delete all (and some expection, e.g. Champions), but seems this time should re-discuss. Matthew_hk t c 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator's reasoning is entirely correct. Punkmorten 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the templates of winning squads--KaragouniS 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but champions. Can someone explain why on earth we should delete Euro champions templates? Last times fail to indicate consensus. To quote last closing admin:

I'm relisting this because like Amarkov I'm having a hard time understanding the nomination, but if I read this correctly the contested CfD is the December 4 one, which ended in a no-consensus against precedent. So !votes in favor of deletion should read "overturn, delete", not "endorse deletion". Also, since Greece won the Euro 2004 the Denmark 1992 precedent should hold and the CfD end in a split decision (keep Greece, delete Latvia). Iow, a tangled mess worse than offside rules. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko Silver 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly the sort of thing templates are for, and it provides some relief for the category system. CalJW 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with CalJW.--Domitius 19:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, no clutter and useful for navigation and freeing of category searching. Whilding87 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It do clutter in Strong nation in football

e.g. Shunsuke Nakamura (1 World Cup + 2 AFC Asian Cup + 2 Confederations Cup)

Paolo Maldini (4 World Cup + 3 UEFA Euro),

Patrick Vieira (3 World Cup + 2 UEFA Euro). Matthew_hk t c 04:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Champions - I'm not especially a fan of any World Cup/Euro templates, but this option seems like the best way to keep it under check. HornetMike 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with CalJW. - Nick C 13:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but champions. Better handled by the squad list articles. – Elisson • T • C • 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but champions. The problem with keeping Euro Championships squads was in the precedent it set. While the European competition is only every 4 years and only exceptional players will feature in more than two tournaments, the African equivalent is every two years and much more prone to clutter. Rigobert Song, for example, could have no less than six ACoN templates (1996-2006) to go with his 3 WC templates. Caledonian Place 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying why the deletion proposal was in the first place. I understand the reasoning. IMHO, the "template clutter" below the player's data is actually informative in case we're speaking of distinctions, prizes, cups etc. I wouldn't mind having 6 or even 9 templates of championing teams below the article. How about solving part of it by means of {{hidden begin}}? It is used in other templates (e.g. see international organizations et al. in country articles such as Greece, Italy etc). Niko Silver 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with the hidden option implemented, as proposed by NikoSilver. This should solve the clutter problem, and we no longer need to have a discussion about this repeatedly or when the next regional tournament comes around. Chanheigeorge 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand the worry about clutter, World Cup only templates seems like a completely arbitrayr cut-off point. Surely no-one could argue that any middling World Cup team is more notable than the greatest achievements in the history of Latvia, Greece, Denmark, etc. The hide option would be a good solution. ArtVandelay13 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone suggested hide option before, but some problem happened. IF the hide option works, i suggest there is a limitation on creation, such as top regional event, ie. Asian Cup, CONCACAF Gold Cup, but non more UNCAF Nations Cup, Caribbean Cup, East Asian Cup, etc. Matthew_hk t c 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I've had a go at implementing a hide option, and I've come up with User:ArtVandelay13/squadstest. The master template is currently in my namespace, but it uses all of the variables in the original, e.g. Template:Brazil Squad 1994 World Cup, so it could be swapped easily. Also, I agree with the above comment by Matthew HK. ArtVandelay13 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added {{Template group}} in your test page. Please help with its title. Niko Silver 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible Keep for CURRENT champions of the confederations - I think a better way to present this information is to maintain "squads of xyz tournament" pages, and link to those from individual player pages. So, using the Shunsuke Nakamura example above, five links to Asian Cup 2000 squads#Japan, 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup squads#Japan, Asian Cup 2004 squads#Japan, 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup squads#Japan, and 2006 FIFA World Cup squads#Japan accomplish the same thing that the five templates would have. It may be a good opportunity for the football project to standardize the way it's presented, too, because just in the Japan player articles there are several different ways that the teams are listed. (A table, in Shunsuke's case; a "National team" section, like in Tatsuhiko Kubo; and others) Neier 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CalJW. 1ne 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neier. Oldelpaso 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep But with hide option and guidelines. Matthew_hk t c 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but champions, as per previous AFDs (per original proposal). The tactic here seems to be to re-create again and again until objectors get bored. Daemonic Kangaroo 13:18, 17 March 2007 (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:Disney Lakes

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial list of links to mostly nonexistent articles about bodies of water at Walt Disney World Resort. —Whoville 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Templates like this, in my experience, spur article creation/improvement. I would bet we'd have articles on all or nearly all of these lakes in a year. --W.marsh 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do you have an example of template-caused article creation? OverMyHead 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I created {{Kentucky Parks}} just 6 weeks ago, I think only a third of the links were blue. Now all but three are. It doesn't always happen that fast, but it helps. --W.marsh 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in participating in TFD actively, but I'll just note this: I created tons of articles on Ohio townships because of redlinks in templates. Nyttend 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Villiage Lake is {{prod}}'d. The use of this template at Epcot#World Showcase Lagoon is questionable (one sentence mid-page should not justify a section+template). But I do not know whether they are each notable. Perhaps it would be better to make a List of Walt Disney World lakes. –Pomte 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist so consensus can be reached. IronGargoyle 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim - Only 3 on that list have an article and I doubt many more are notable enough to merit one. Trim to only lakes with an article. —dgies^t_c 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even if trimmed, remaining topics too weak to justify a navbox. —dgies^t_c 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - if it helps gets new articles created keep it. The only issue I can think of is notability. Chupper 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the 4 blue links, one is only a section of another article, one is not a disney lake and does not use the template and the 3rd and 4th ones are probably AFD candidates if anyone can be bothered - no obvious notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for doubt of notability and improvement. –Pomte 03:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, redundant. Those lakes are maybe interesting enough to together make one decent article. SergioGeorgini 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W.marsh. 1ne 02:30, 16 March 2007 (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:Linkimage

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_8/Template:Linkimage, due to length. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]