Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 30

< October 29	October 31 >

October 30

Template:Keg

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 debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a bad idea as it targets regular editors who are known to respond better to personal notes than to templated warnings (per WP:Don't template the regulars.) Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the template itself involves broken code; as of this writing it's not ready for prime time. I don't think it needs to be fixed. It can be deleted instead. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there has been a complete misuderstanding of what I meant. It's meant to be inserted into long discussions to give editors something to chew on while they discuss and work. The "broken code" requires substitution to be "fixed" so old templates can be identified and removed to keep them from piling up. The idea for the name was (in an American or German context) like going to a pub or bar to chat and ordering a round of beer to drink while you chat. It's also like reading a newspaper while chatting with someone at a coffie shop. It was a little idea to keep editors from dying of bordom during long discussions. Another idea would be to give a signpost subscription during a discussion. Read over the actual template and I think you will see what I mean.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator's description of what this template is meant to do sounds like it isn't an appropriate addition to discussions. I don't think we need this. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon consideration of author's statement of intent, I continue to stand for deletion: not a template that would ever be useful. Wikipedia doesn't need extra baggage like this. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to move to voting yet. Let's first discuss why this template is not a good idea and then we can get to the final vote.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All discussion here counts toward final vote. Discussion and voting are simultaneous. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand it, the purpose of this template is to cool down particularly heated and long discussions, and the way this template is supposed to help is by inserting the current content of the Did you know facts/questions as featured on the Main Page into the discussion. However, I don't believe this template would help the problem it is intended to solve, or even that the problem is that serious. Even the most heated discussion on Wikipedia does not take place face to face or in real time. Therefore, any editor who wants to take a break or walk away from the discussion can do so just by choosing to look at a different part of Wikipedia, or visit a different web site, or get away from the computer altogether. Furthermore, I have been in a few heated discussions on Wikipedia (fortunately not that many, relatively speaking), and read many more of them. But I can't think of any of those discussions where the participants would have benefited from having someone comment, "Did you know that the deep water offshore fish whitefin trevally has excellent eyesight in the dark due to the presence of tapetum in its eyes?" (This is based on an actual example from the current "Did you know".) Seeing such a comment would certainly surprise the participants in the argument, but it would violate the Maxim of Relation because it wouldn't help the participants arrive at a resolution to their discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to cool anything down. It's ment as something to chew on, like WikiJerky in essence. Hust an off the cuff, non topic thing. It would'nt be related to a discussion and it's not ment to be. It's usually used in non-debative, technecal discussions, like an attempt to satisfy a request.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even after reading this explanation, I still don't understand why editors would be looking for "something to chew on" in the midst of a technical discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (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:UEFA Cup 2007-08

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 debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 16:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA Cup 2007-08 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superceded by Template:UEFA Cup 2008-09, we don't have one template for every season, only the current season. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to suggest subst'ing this template into the UEFA Cup 2007-08 article but then I realised that all the information that is contained within the template can be seen in the article anyway, so there would be no point. And since there are no other articles that I can imagine this template being useful to, I suggest that the template be deleted. – Pee Jay 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why don't we rename these templates from Template:X Cup 2008-09 to Template:Current X Cup to avoid all this admin? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with ArtVandelay13. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with above--ClubOranje^Talk 07:56, 3 November 2008 (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:Dungeons & Dragons prestige class

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 debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dungeons & Dragons prestige class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in articlespace and unliikely to be in future owing to the niche, in-universe nature of the content it applies to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that all the articles this was used on have been deleted or merged, and the reasons given by the nominator about the unencyclopaedic nature of the content. Terraxos (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (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:Poker - Face

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 G8 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps •HELP)} 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poker - Face (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a non-notable artist deleted under CSD A7. Newsaholic (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason for existance. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G8 Dependent on a nonexistant article. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:35, 30 October 2008 (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 U.S. legislation

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 debate was keep --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template:Infobox Legislation already exists as a catchall national template. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template {{Infobox Legislation}} is not a substitute for {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. It has much fewer parameters and does not show Great Seal of the United States. In my opinion, it is appropriate to have special templates for legislation of different countries. The universal template should be used only when a special template does not exist. Ruslik (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The U.S. legislative process is distinct from other countries and the template provides useful information on key legislative milestones. Moreau1 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this comes to a decision to keep then I will go ahead and create a similar Canadian template. That was my motivation in the first place to request this be deleted. If it is decided that the US legislation template can be kept then I'll go ahead and make a Canadian version. There would be no justifiable reason to allow one (USA) but not the other (Canada). NorthernThunder (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes specialized templates are useful - this is one of those times, particularly as legislative processes can vary significantly from country to country. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:47, 2 November 2008 (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:Pennsylvania TV Stations

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 debate was delete. Just for clarification, the last one was more no consensus than keep...which defaults to keep. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template as each network (CBS, NBC, etc.) has their own template and then the "market" template with it's information. PA is the only state to all it's stations listed on one template. This state list of television stations also makes this template unnecessary. NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 02:36

Delete as redundant. Xenon 54 22:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be redundant. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I believe that the template is redundant, it was nominated for deletion in June 2008 and kept. What's different now? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Comment - I wasn't aware this was previously nom'd for deletion....or I would have voted on it then (probably against). - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 02:48
Delete as redundant. --J B 82^c 01:33, 4 November 2008 (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.

Old NBA depth charts

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 debate was Delete all --Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007–08 Boston Celtics depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Chicago Bulls depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Houston Rockets depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Indiana Pacers depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Milwaukee Bucks depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Minnesota Timberwolves depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 New Jersey Nets depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 New York Knicks depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Toronto Raptors depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007-08 Detroit Pistons depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Depth charts are only being transcluded on a single article. Also, the depth charts for the end of a season don't really make sense. Why is the last day of the season more important than the first, or some random day in the middle? Labeling players as "injured" when they are no longer injured seems strange too. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, three of the templates above (Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia) are transcluded in one article. The other nine are not used at all. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subst where appropriate and delete. As an aside, I really don't know why we tend to create templates with limited time scopes like this. Wouldn't {{Boston Celtics depth chart}} be a better title? We could subst the template into each season's article at the end of the year, then continue on updating for the next season. Resolute 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your aside. That was my next order of business, to rename all the 08-09 templates to remove the "08-09" so we don't end up deleting the old depth charts each season. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It makes sense. I'm gonna bring it up within the hockey project. and make the changes. Reso lute 14:45, 31 October 2008 (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.

Ohio State running back template

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 debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no other templates like this, especially for running backs, so it should not exist--Yankees10 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep For every new type of template, some template must be the first of its kind. How would the hypothetical existence of a similar template for Texas A&M or Notre Dame affect the usefulness of this template? - Dravecky (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree with Dravecky's argument in principle, I also don't see the use of this template. It does not bind closely related articles together, as it is not important on the article of Ohio State's current starting tailback to note who Ohio State's tailback was ten years ago. This is just a clutter template. Reso lute 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems somewhat trivial, not very useful for navigational purposes, and worrying implications: if templates like this became widely used, the majority of articles on American football players would have a large stack of them at the bottom, which seems undesirable. Terraxos (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2008 (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.