Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 10

< October 9	October 11 >

October 10

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 keep. John254 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24

The template contains redundant liks which do not link to separate articles. It is inherent with POV over what constitutes a major oranisation and a character that should be in the template. The template is also out of date and would be too large and cumbersome to adequately be updated. Lucy-marie 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove redirect links, as they're not useful for navigation. The criterion for including an article in this template should have nothing to do with POV—articles about the fictional in-universe of 24 that exist should be included; articles that don't exist shouldn't be included. If a subject is not notable enough to have an article, it's safe to say that it’s probably not notable enough to go in the template. Please, feel free to update the template if it is out-of-date (Category:24 (TV series) is a great starting point). See also Category:Television show navigational boxes and subcategories for hundreds of templates like this one. Gracenotes^T § 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Gracenotes and inasmuch as deletion, except where a template is entirely unsalvagable and contains nothing at all the preservation of which should be useful (where, that is, starting from scratch is the only viable option), is not a substitute for cleanup or a solution to persistent out-of-dateness. Joe 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tukkaatje 09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment a reason for keeping the template is required as this is not a vote.--Lucy-marie 10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—how about we stop nominating things for deletion and actually work on fixing them? – Deckill er 04:59, 14 October 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:Bjaodn feature

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. – Malcolm (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused and old. Contested speedy under G6 (tag removed). Rocket000 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and I do not think it will be used again. Carlosguitar 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and I'd agree with a housekeeping deletion), this is useless since BJAODN was largely deleted. Melsaran (talk) 17:56, 11 October 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:EC race report infobox

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. – Malcolm (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All features and functionality have been absorbed into the universal Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. All previous uses of 'EC' have been converted to use 'Grand Prix'. – AlexJ 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant. Davnel03 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete. Carlosguitar 00:06, 11 October 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:Current only

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. – Malcolm (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, useless. – Jack · talk · 14:40, Wednesday, 10 October 2007

Delete Redundant to {{Current}}. - Rocket000 19:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, exactly the same as {{current}} but with a slightly different wording. A redirect wouldn't really make sense; "current" is a much more logical name than "current only". Melsaran (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not used at all, so I doubt a redirect would be of much use. ~ Sebi _[talk] 06:24, 13 October 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:666 Satan FUR

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. There are things that don't completely comply with WP:NFCC, but it seems like it could be improved. It should be made more generic, though that's not necessarily enough reason to justify deletion. – Malcolm (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not complete the Article field in its call to Template:Non-free fair use rationale and therefore violates WP:NFCC#10c. It also does not insist on an image being low resolution, weakening compliance with WP:NFCC#3b. It is also being used for many different types of images in many different articles (including many images just used to decorate lists). Blanket Fair Use Rationale templates are already a little dubious, but this is being applied incorrectly to far too many images. Some WP:666 Satan articles are becoming full of dozens of images with invalid fair use rationales. It is safer to remove it, flag the fair use violations for speedy deletion and notify WP:666 Satan to replace the justifiable uses with the much more general Template:Non-free fair use rationale. – Papa November 10:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the purpose of the Template was to provide an easier means to provide valid fair usage rationales of each image, I must agree that such is the case and has been made evident in discussions between myself and the main proprietor of the 666 Satan articles. Given the facts stated above by Papa November (Nice name, I'm Papa Midnight ^.^ ), I give my support to the deletion of the template. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh interesting, not the most interesting disscussion I've been in, but interesting all the same. Before I give my opinion I must ask, that if (if) the template's problems were to be fixed, would the template stay?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing this was my idea for this template to be modeled after the FUR used on Naruto related pages I was wondering if the Naruto one goes against policy as well.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple good points were raised here by Sam of the blue. I must also extend my opinion to encompass those raised by him as well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as creator of the template i can tell you that the main reason i used it was to make the process of adding a FUR to an image related to 666 Satan ALOT easier then the normal process, that process being having to manually add in the table info(assumin you used the same look and design) and having to add in certain pieces that are exactly the same in just about every image, so i designed the template to allow for quick and easy insertion to any images related to the article(s) that would be loaded onto wikipedia and if the admins see no possible use what so ever for making things easier for people then delete it, but as Sam and Gohan have said above, in my honest opinion i think that the option that should be first and foremost is to attempt to fix it prior to just posting it for deletion, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationales apply to the use of a specific image in a specific article. In the case of album covers being used in an infobox, it's the same type of image, being used in the same way, so it's quite easy to generate a template such as Template:Album cover fur which provides a fair use rationale for that type of image in that context. Even then, it's quite controversial and has been the subject of several heated discussions. More conservative editors believe that there is no such thing as a "clear cut case" for fair use, and that templates such as Template:Album cover fur encourage editors to just declare any use of album art "fair" without thinking about it.

In the case of the 666 Satan project, you're trying to make a fair use template which covers many different uses of many different kinds of image. It doesn't explain why the use of the image is considered fair, or even ~~how it is being used or~~ in which article! If you ~~restricted the scope of the template and~~ provided all the required details, it might be acceptable though. As for the template for Naruto, if you provide a link, I'll take a look. Cheers, Papa November 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only problem with your statement is that you make it sound like we are using this template to explain reasoning for using said image in the article, when in reality all the template is used for is to automatically fill in things that are the same all around for all images

for example, the 'sourse' of every image is going to be the creator (Seishi Kishimoto) because he is the one who created the series(hense why its in the template)

also, they are all going to be from the manga(so far) so for sourse i included An image from chapter {{{chapter}}}, page {{{page}}} as to only have to include the numbers instead of typing it all out

on top of that you also argue that we are using the template to explain 'you're trying to make a fair use template which covers many different uses of many different kinds of image. It doesn't explain why the use of the image is considered fair, or even how it is being used or in which article!' when in fact the two sections that are of most importance, (description of the image & purpose for uploading them) have been set so that they are to be added via the way that most templates work

so in my honest opinion i think that your problem is with the FUR and not the template as a whole... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Article parameter has been added, it's certainly an improvement. I agree that my problem is with the FUR, but specifically I don't feel that the template in its current form gives a valid fair use rationale, regardless of how it is used - it's still not general enough for the range of images/uses you are covering. Some more reasons are:

The Resolution parameter is set as "unknown". It should explicitly say whether the resolution is low or not, (and if not, why high resolution is necessary). Could people use it to make/sell illegal copies of the work? Could a lower resolution image give the same information?
The Portion parameter is also too restrictive. It should make clear whether it is an entire image, a cropped/magnified sample etc. Why did you use the portion you chose? Could a smaller sample give the same information?
The Replaceability parameter is also too restrictive. It should say why the image isn't replaceable, not just that it isn't.

If all restrictions like this can be fixed then I'll accept that the template acts as a reasonable shortcut for the general fair use rationale template and can be applied to a wide range of images/uses. Papa November 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks so let me get things straight, if we were to make different FUR templates for different types of images and got their discriptions right then the you would have no problem with the 666 Satan templates, am I correct or I'm I mistaken.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but essentially I think there are two choices here...

Several specific templates: Have several templates that fill in lots of complete information for specific types of use of a specific type of image.
One generic template: Have just one template that fills in the essential common information (author, publication date, publisher, chapter, page etc) and leaves the user free to enter specific information for each use.

The current single template is not generic enough, doesn't provide enough information, and doesn't allow the user to enter more information for some fields even if they want to. Also, I noticed that the Article field is permanently set as 666 Satan, meaning that the images can only be used in that individual article. Papa November 08:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ya that was because someone messed with the page(on the article part), i fixed it tho.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:42, 12 October 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:Infobox Scottish castle

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used on any articles. Superseded by {{Infobox Military Structure}}, as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scottish_Castles#Standardisation_of_infoboxes. – Jonathan Oldenbuck 10:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and superseded. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 19 October 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:I bite newcomers if necessary

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... at the very least this should have been made in the user namespace.. Rocket000 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Encourages people to ignore WP:BITE. Papa November 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inflammatory template, may be speedy under T2. Carlosguitar 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Sends entirely the wrong message. Perhaps even T1 (inflammatory) or T2 (blatant misrepresentation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc). Melsaran (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this is clearly tongue-in-cheek. I see little hope of legitimate use of the template but if you see this as divisive and inflammatory, you need a serious cup of chamomile. Pascal.Tesson 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were more humorous, I'd say userfy, but it really is not funny enough to have any legitimate use. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might have been intended to be humorous, but I don't find it humorous and I doubt any actual newcomers would think that it is anything but humorous. ~ Sebi _[talk] 06:26, 13 October 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:Bird flu around the world

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. If bird flu really does get this bad, teh template can be recreated. – Malcolm (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see all the articles that this navigational box links to being created. At least I hope not. The bird flu never really caught on.. Rocket000 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this template has the potential to be quite useful (depending on how bad the bird flu season is). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 19 October 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:Biochemical Reaction Infobox

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Goes off screen (at least in Firefox).. Rocket000 07:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a obsolete template. Carlosguitar 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this un-used template. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 19 October 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:AusEd

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 (no real need to debate it now, given the creator's rationale for the delete vote and the lack of transclusions. Hance, CSD G6.) Orderinchaos 04:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only two links to it exist to tell users it's deprecated. Rocket000 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its depreciated. I am the creator, we now use edu=yes in WP Australia, instead of this template. Twenty Years 04:28, 10 October 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:Karaite Jewish member

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. – Malcolm (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the last one. This doesn't belong in the template namespace. Made by the same user that created {{User WikiProject Karaites}}. Rocket000 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:13, 19 October 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:User WikiProject Karaites

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. – Malcolm (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs in the Wikipedia: namespace.. Rocket000 03:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 19 October 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:Largest cities of the European Union

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. There is absolutely no need for a template like this when there is a list in the article with the (almost) same name. – Malcolm (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, contentious (see edit history), based on Original Research (see tag on Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. PamD 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! The statistics are taken from official statistics produced by the relevant European country or city authority. This is not original research, just like population statistics for countries, or national economic output are not original research. While the template may not be necessary, it is helpful, and provides quick knowledge as to where the city in question fits in relation to Europe's other biggest urban areas. 131.111.200.200 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is helpful and should be kept. America's largest cities have a similar template. Imperium Europeum 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) helpful for what? It just seems to clutter the page while the information can be provided better at Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits

(b) "provides quick knowledge as to where the city in question fits in relation to Europe's other biggest urban areas" - surely a sentence in the "demographics" section saying "X is the nth largest city in the EU" would be more useful? And/or a "See also" link to the above list.

(c) the US cities are all counted by the same census bureau, so it's much easier to define cities in a consistent way and the list is less contentious - but in any case the existence of an unnecessary US template doesn't show we should do it for EU too.

(d) the two comments above are both from the same academic institution so may not be unconnected (and Imperium Europeum created the template). PamD 06:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as needless clutter and OR minefield; we already have lists for this. Biruitorul 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is doing no harm to anyone. I can only assume the calls for deletion are motivated by POV Euro-scepticism. 131.111.200.200 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list does no harm to anyone; making it into a template and adding it to 50 pages is clutter. PamD 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need for this navigation box. The list is fine, but having such a unprecise definition in a template is a problem. The chance that the list is going to change is high, and it means that this template must be added/removed to articles every time the list is changed. And what is the need to navigate through this set of cities? Why not the 100 largest cities in EU and why not the largest cities in the world? Navigation boxes should consist of a clearly defined and limited set of articles. – Kildor 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep--Grouping the cities on an article page is a good stimulus to considering the matter of size, and list articles are soooooo boring. This caused a positive "Oh, look that city is really that large" response in me, and I had far more trouble with the WAY it was tagged than I'll ever have with the template. (It was very difficult to figure out which template had the message.)
Furthermore, the edit record shows next to nothing in edit warring – I count exactly one revert in the last fifteen edits, of ?25? or so total. That's damn stable, and the nom needs to find something else to do (on another site please) if she's calling this contentious.
If the tagging isn't clear on other articles, (She didn't subst:PAGENAME, so nothing links here) this ought to be closed and reopened. // FrankB 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She in fact used {{tfd|{{subst:Template:Largest cities of the European Union}}}}, taking the instructions on Template:Tfd a bit too literally. I've fixed it now. —Cryptic 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Cryptic, for fixing that: the instructions on Template:Tfd are quite clear but a key sentence "This code will work as is; there is no need to replace PAGENAME with the actual page name." wasn't included in the instructions I was following on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion! I've added it there now, to avoid anyone else making the same mistake. PamD 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template has twice been rearranged into A-Z order claiming that order by size is POV; the underlying list is far from uncontentious - see Talk:Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits PamD 07:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--Thanks for the companion article. In such a place there is bound to be discussion about ways, means and reliability of data, AND having experienced various flame wars first hand, that talk is "sedate and professional".
  
  Moreover, now alphabetically ordered, the template limits it's contents to 50 of the 100 largest cities, and I have a great deal of faith that my fellow editors can get the upper fifty correct. Such figures will likely change only slowly—and then usually only in relative ranking, also debunking the concept that the template will need frequent maintenance.
  
  Tis as useful as any navigation template in that respect (e.g. Towns in Saxony-Annalt), and to someone wanting to learn more about Europe, a good aid. Inclusion of such is the province of the editors maintaining an article page, not the place for this forum to dictate. We need limit ourselves to really bad ideas and things orphaned and unused. The template is collapsible, and it's no worse than many. Cheers. // FrankB 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template to identify the city size within the EU.Lear 21 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that it is an original research fork, but do agree that it is somewhat unlikely that people wish to navigate between the largest city regions in the EU via a footer template. Un-required I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits does the same job with more information and also provides links to its sources (even if they are not properly cited). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we need it? We have lists for these, I doubt there is much call for a navbox of it. Compounded by different defnitions of of a city within the EU also makes it very unhelpful and innacurate.- J Logan ^t: 09:18, 20 October 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.