Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Template:ThunderbirdsCoach[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The result of the debate was withdrawn per argument here, other pages are likely to be created in time. Non-admin closure. ><RichardΩ6 12 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red link farm, and the coaches are likely to not meet WP:N and be worthy of articles anyway. RichardΩ6 12 21:29, 3 January 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:Scottish monarchs[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replication of an existing template {{Scottish Monarchs}} after an edit war. This template, and its cousin{{Pictish monarchs}}, should both be deleted as they are replication; {{Pictish monarchs}} is already listed below. — Bob (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goes without saying really, per nominations for {{Scottish Monarchs}} and {{Pictish monarchs}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the disputes have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Template:Scottish Monarchs. JPG-GR (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. Bill Reid | Talk 08:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork of established template. Creator should learn to play a straight bat and reach consensus for such a change. Happy‑melon 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would like to see Template:Scottish Monarchs moved here or to a more accurate title. As is, this template is redundant and a discussion on appropriate templating is underway. Srnec (talk) 23:18, 4 January 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:Scottish Monarchs[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 debate was Snowball keep, possible bad-faith nom (non-admin closure) – Happy‑melon 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information is duplicated in Template:Pictish monarchs and Template:Scottish monarchs. — Michael Sanders 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. Michael Sanders 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this really is preposterous. Template for deletion is Template:Scottish Monarchs which has existed for years (capital M); user has created Template:Scottish monarchs (lower case m) solely as a bad faith addition to his edit warring armoury. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_3#Template:Pictish_monarchs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pending outcome of discussion regarding Template:Pictish monarchs. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a bad faith attempt at deleting an accurate and informative template. Bill Reid | Talk 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a bad faith nomination. --Bob (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Bad faith nomination. Editor has created two new templates and is now trying to eliminate a long-standing one. JPG-GR (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, until the disputes have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would deleting a multi-year old template, but keeping a new one do anything for dispute settling? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the disputing has ended, the desired 'Template' may be re-created & the undesired 'Template' banished from existance. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just working with your train of thought for a second, why on earth would you support the deletion of anything? Really odd logic if I may say, but I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By calling for the deletion of a 'template' you prefer & the deletion of a 'template' Michael prefers? might urged you both to work it it out quicker. If this reasoning disqualifies any of my three opinon-votes, that's wiki-life. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling for the deletion of the established template. As far as I know, it is pretty standard to delete new (here day/hours old) templates for replicating existing ones, esp. when they only arose because the tendentious editor in question wished in extremely bad faith to extend his edit warring into another 30 + articles. Your two votes don't go together coherently I'm afraid: you can't call for the new one to be kept and the old one to be deleted, and then argue that you're being either sensible or fair. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an Administrator feels my 'delete' vote here is invalid, then I'll respect that ruling & scratch my vote out. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's invalid, I just don't see how you can call for the deletion of the established template, but (above) call for the "new" one to be kept; esp. for the reasons you gave. You actually below called for the new "Pictish" template to be deleted too ... which leaves us all in the dark about your logic. Essentially, you want to keep the status quo ante Sanders (like me and most others), but delete the old template, keeping the new, just for the heck of it. I don't think I'm being out of place wondering how that's supposed to make sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpin' Junipter, I've removed my 'opinon-vote' on this Template. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 3 January 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:Pictish monarchs[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User reacted to discussion not going his way on Template talk:Scottish Monarchs by replicating the existing template, and attempting to spread his tendentious edit warring to another 30 or so articles. — Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom) Replication existing template, replication solely for bad faith purposes relating to this comment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Pictish template was created as an attempt to end an edit war between Deacon and another user - a compromise to which Deacon objected. Since then, a user at the Scottish monarchs template commented that that template should not be changed because the Pictish monarchs were still using the Scottish template (but were left out by the changes to the Scottish template). The Pictish monarchs are now being linked to their own template, rather than being chucked in with the Scottish monarchs. Michael Sanders 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will not carry discussion of your antics over here, but your bad faith misrepresentation of this will speak for itself to all those who read. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per talk at Template talk:Scottish Monarchs, Pictish monarchs should have their own template installed in their articles so that the OR claim that they were Kings of Scotland can be removed from the Scottish monarchs template. Michael Sanders 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just as the attempted substitution of Template:Scottish Monarchs with Template:Scottish monarchs this is being done in bad faith. The proposed template even carries a deceitful heading Legendary Monarchs implying that these Pictish kings are the figment of someone's imagination. Bill Reid | Talk 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - replication. --Bob (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This would appear to have complex history. It seems clear the new template is an attempt to replace the existing one with two instead. This is not my field but whilst there appear to be other issues involved, does this specific issue boil down to whether or not the Pictish monarchs are, or are not, considered to be soveriegns of Scotland? If so, then the template is presumably redundant. If not, then would the issue not be resolved by renaming the top banner of Template:Scottish Monarchs, which currently states "Monarchs over Scotland (Alba)" to "Monarchs of Alba"? The name of the template and the detail makes it pretty obvious what is intended. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made the suggestion to Sanders to appease him that it could be renamed, but it was rejected. These two templates are indeed an attempt to replace the existing one, but only because the user in question didn't get his way in the discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pictish monarchs are not considered to be monarchs of Scotland - traditionally, the first King of Scotland is listed as Kenneth MacAlpin; historically, 'Scotland' as a country only came into existence sometime after Kenneth's death, when the little kingdoms in geographical North Britain were melded into one Kingdom (Alba). Since the latter is not possible to accurately represent, and since there is no consensus here or in the wide world as to when to begin 'Scotland', it is simplest to use the traditional view, that the 'Kingdom of Scotland' begins with MacAlpin. Michael Sanders 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing another argument you've already lost, and not making any new points either.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue this argument here. What I will say to all users in general here is that an insurmountable clash of viewpoints has been thrown up at Template:Scottish Monarchs. Some editors favour the traditionally-used stance of beginning with Kenneth MacAlpin. Some favour the Original stance of claiming that MacAlpin's predecessors were also Kings of Scotland, or Monarchs over Scotland, or what-have-you. I recommend to you the edit history and the talk page. That dispute will only continue if the Pictish template is deleted, because those two sides are unlikely to come to an agreement. On the other hand, the retention and use of a separate Pictish template allows some satisfaction, since editors can safely claim that they reigned in Scotland without making unsubstantiated claims that they reigned over Scotland (there could also be further templates, for the Isle of Man, the Isles, Strathclyde, etc, all of which existed quite a way into the history of 'Alba' i.e. The Kingdom of Scotland, and which could all be described as reigning "in" Scotland. Michael Sanders 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to continue this argument here, why do you ... er ... proceed to continue the argument here? At least if you're gonna do so, bring up points that haven't already been debunked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Template:Scottish Monarchs. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until disputes have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unacceptable POV-fork of an established template. Creator must learn to play a straight bat, as I said above. Happy‑melon 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Discussion is underway at Template talk:Scottish Monarchs and that template should be kept and moved to a more appropriate title. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 4 January 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:UCIProTour-teams(2007)[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 debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Templates are deprecated as only used for the specific year. New versions of the templates (here andhere) are not year specific. — Severo^TC 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprecated. Happy‑melon 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as deprecated & redundant to non-year specific. SkierRMH (talk) 23:03, 5 January 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 Anime episode[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been orphaned in main space as the result of several episode stubs being merged into lists. It's still used a couple of times in user space, but these could be replaced by the better designed {{Infobox Television episode}}. --Farix (Talk) 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already have a television episode box and I don't see what extra value is found in this one when its being barely used. Collectonian (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to offer anything that the television episode doesn't have. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, we don't need an ep box for each genre offering exactly the same functionality. ><RichardΩ6 12 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain since what I say will be promptly ignored as it has always been on the issue of allegedly redundant templates. Perhaps had TTN and et all didn't mass blank mass number of pages, this template and such would be in use. -- Cat ^chi? 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, exactly? Happy‑melon 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Cat opposes the merging of any episode article into a list, not matter how stubby or lacking in notability the episode is. --Farix (Talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not EVER and by that I mean EVER talk behalf of me again. You are dead wrong with your analysis. -- Cat ^chi? 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as deprecated by {{infobox Television episode}}. Happy‑melon 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — deprecated by standard template. Wasn't this up for deletion a few months ago (but I may be recalling a character box). --Jack Merridew 10:13, 10 January 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:PrinceTennis[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This series specific character infobox has been replaced by the more general {{Infobox animanga character}}. It's no longer needed. --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary to have a show specific character one when a more general one is already available. Collectonian (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not in use, there's a general replacement that works just fine. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated and orphaned (hopefully soon we'll have a CSD for these). Happy‑melon 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 23:02, 5 January 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:Lunar crater references[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 debate was to keep, for now. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

breaks intext citations. — Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was a navbox that hid the references. I have converted it into a standard list by the style guidelines as it was in no way a navigational box and there is no reason to hide or display references in that way, assuming every reference pertains to each transcluding article. Regarding the nom's claim that this "breaks" inline citations, that's not accurate because citations can be added inline to refer to these references. –Pomte 12:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now—This template is gradually being replaced by inline citations, but it is still in use on about 1,400 lunar crater articles. The citations are valid and they were used in the formation of the crater articles. The template provided a convenient means of maintaining the list and displaying it on multiple pages. Finally, per Pomte, the nominator's concern is invalid as inline citations can also be used.—RJH (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte & RJHall. JPG-GR (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until conversion is complete. Clear utility. Happy‑melon 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness is clear, just needs conversion. SkierRMH (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until conversion is complete, then delete - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 09:12, 10 January 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:New Mexico prefixes[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a phone book. — —Scouter Sig 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. —Scouter Sig 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The best example of WP:NOT#DIR I have EVER seen. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the hell would this be used for?! ><RichardΩ6 12 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's intended to be transcluded onto both area codes to document the lines along which they are split - I cleaned out a similar list from Area code 317 a couple months ago. Oh, and delete. —Random832 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPG-GR - I couldn't agree more. The textbook example, in fact. Happy‑melon 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 23:00, 5 January 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:Navboxrugby1[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, a mess, and probably won't be used. — Bob (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no statement of purpose to distinguish it from {{Navboxrugby}}. –Pomte 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a test page. JPG-GR (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its crap. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remain civil, please. Happy‑melon 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Atomic bomb in a template factory! But seriously, it's broken and redundant as per Pomte. ><RichardΩ6 12 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although it is an interesting exercise for anyone who considers themselves an adept template coder to try and work out where the creator has hidden no less than fourty unmatched closing braces :D. Happy‑melon 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - ouch... redundant & just, ouch... SkierRMH (talk) 22:59, 5 January 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.