Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

August 29

Template:Aprilfools

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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outdated template. Not very usefull even at time of its conception. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with outdated, it still works! Anyway, delete - Using this instead of the nice featured star is not funny, even for Aprilfools day, a couple of jokes in the Main Page are enough. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel it's particularly funny, but if admins want to replace all stars with triangles on April Fool's Day they can just edit the actual featured article template. No need to give all users the ability to manually plaster these on articles, that other people might have to go clean up afterwards. Equazcion (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is used to discretely denote humour and used in numerous places. –xeno^talk 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Humourous pages should be more explicitly tagged with {{humor}}. PC78 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how it helps the project. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2009 (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:John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash

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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Every article on the template is linked in the article on the crash. — Music Maker 5376 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary as explained in nom, plus putting this template in Essex County Airport or Piper Saratoga would give undue weight in those articles to a single incident only somewhat related to their subjects. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reason given in the nomination, I have nominated one of five articles in the template, Lauren Bessette for deletion. Pending the outcome of her Afd, I will also nominate her sister's article, Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy for deletion. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The two women don't appear to be notable, particularly the sister-in-law. That leaves the plane crash itself and the President's son (who I am hoping is not another memorial). --can dle •wicke 17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; unnecessary for navigation. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - Skier Dude (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (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:Namor

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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not needed. In use on only one page, where I had to remove it, because it is so badly written it causes a references error. But the main thing is that it is just completely redundant. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless since its very beginning (redundant with references included in the body of the article). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, and doesn't look useful to begin with. --RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as easily transcluded into the one article where it would be useful.Skier Dude (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (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:Latvian Cities

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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latvian Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is currently unused and redundant to the existing {{infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Replaced with superior template and pin map! Himalayan 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But what about the "lost" parameter? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway its unused now. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bright pink dot maps were rightly replaced with a higher quality svg pin, see e.g Jelgava... Himalayan 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to a generic template. Green Giant (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - and now deprecated. Skier Dude (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (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 NPO

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 Redirect to {{Infobox Non-profit}}. Ruslik_Zero 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NPO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Infobox Non-profit}}. Both templates are very old and share some parameters. About 100 transclusions. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems redundant. Equazcion (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all parameters are now compatible. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just tried replacing Infobox NPO with Infobox Non-profit on Amnesty International. It replaces "Services" with "Products" (and what seems like overlinking of products as well). I don't know how appropriate "products" is in general, but it sounds ridiculous for AI. Rd232 ^talk 09:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Services" and "Products" are quite similar. Anyway this is already fixed. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, thanks. If all of NPO's functionality is available now, then by all means de-duplicate. Rd232 ^talk 20:25, 3 September 2009 (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:Intro-synonyms

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 No consensus. Both points of view are equally compelling. Ruslik_Zero 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-synonyms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unclear message, some redundancy with {{POV-intro}}. Is a synonyms the important enough to deserve an ambox? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the creator of the template. The POV-intro template is too crude, by making it appear to the public that the POV of the whole intro is in dispute. Specialization is needed. This template has stopped a revert war on social liberalism, where the synonyms are now being discussed on the talk page instead of back and forth reverting. When the title of an article has synonyms, the synonyms ought to be listed on the first line in boldface rather than later in the intro, or worse yet only in the body. This is because it is POV to highlight only one term as being "the" proper term to use when there are synonyms. That is, it shows editor preference for one term over the other. Wikipedia shouldn't push any particular synonym. It's bad enough that the article title has to choose one. The exception to this is when listing synonyms that are only found in a few sources, in which case they of course should not be given equal weight with the common synonyms and therefore ought to be listed further down. What happens is POV-motived editors will try to obscure synoynms that they don't like, or highlight synonyms that they think might push their POV. So to this template is to prevent revert wars of editors moving the synonyms around, or deleting synonyms even, by providing notification that a dispute is taking place thereby allowing editors the comfort of knowing that the reader knows there may be a problem with the synonyms so that they can discuss the issue. The "POV intro" template is too vague. Might as well be more to the point of what the POV dispute is about. The evidence so far is that the template works to prevent edit wars. So please keep it. Introman (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Introman created the template as part of a dispute on the lead of one article and it is unlikely to be used again. It's pretty obscure, the claim that "The neutrality of the introduction is being disputed on the claim that it shows unjustifiable favortism (sic) for one or more synonyms". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the above user Four Deuces is in a synonym dispute with me. Introman (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a discussion there but that's not a reason to put an ambox at the top of the article, just post it in the talk page. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I appreciate the intent, {{POV-intro}} seems sufficient for this situation and is much more broadly applicable. --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why not have a template that is less vague? What's the harm in pointing out what the POV dispute is about? Ideally, I think there should be a specific template for every type of POV dispute. Why make it appear to the public as if the WHOLE intro is in dispute, by putting on such a crude tag as the POV-intro template? Introman (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A specific template for every type of POV dispute?, I think that's going too far. The maintenance becomes so hard with so many templates. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Locos. We have talk pages to discuss the details. A proliferation of different types of POV templates 1) makes it harder for editors to figure out which template to use, and 2) results in templates that are wordy and hard to understand, without actually telling readers the specifics related to that article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. The system is more complex than it was when Wikipedia started but it seems to be handled ok, and would think better the more complex it gets. I don't think you give enough credit to the human mind. Whether this template is deleted or not, I think it's inevitable that more specialization in templates will happen. I think it's a natural evolution. You can only hold back technology for so long. Introman (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{Intro-fringe}} and {{Intro-version}} should also be deleted. The reason they have not been nominated is probably that they have not been used. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. Tags aren't generally meant to be this specific, but Introman's point is a good one. When I see that there are other common names for an article's subject that are missing from the intro, a POV tag wouldn't really dissuade me from adding them. I wouldn't think to check the talk page first to see if list of alternate names are precisely what's being disputed. Adding or removing alternate names from an article seems like an excellent way of sneaking in POV edits under the radar, whether intentional or not, and I can imagine many situations where this could become an issue. This template actually could help prevent the further inflaming of certain edit wars, however the wording must be cut down and simplified significantly, which I might have a go at myself. Equazcion (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The template wording has been greatly simplified, thanks to the help of Equazcion. Introman (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2009 (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:Source not reliable

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 Delete. If a source is definitely unreliable, then no information from it can be trusted, and therefore the source should be removed. It is unlikely that this template will be ever needed. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source not reliable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Verify credibility}} Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not only redundant to the other, more widely used template, it also omits the '?' used in {{Verify credibility}}, turning the comment into a declaration rather than an inquiry. If the source is unquestionably not reliable, then it should be removed, not tagged. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created this template because articles may have sources which, although definitely unreliable, nevertheless contain useful information. So, it's useful to leave the unreliable source in the article until such time as a reliable source can be found. Spacepotato (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is it useful to leave the unreliable source in the article? that only confuses people. Anyway, the only differences between both templates are a "?" and that they categorize different: {{Source not reliable}} into Category:Articles needing additional references and {{Verify credibility}} into Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reason given in my comment above. Spacepotato (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever the reason for using this template, it's still basically the same template as {{Verify credibility}}, which can be used in the same way. Equazcion (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant. Garion96 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as replacable w/ "verify credibility. Skier Dude (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (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:Speedcar Series seasons

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 Delete. Obsolete template. Ruslik_Zero 17:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedcar Series seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Narrow focus (3 links) that will not expand, seasons are already linked in the infoboxes at the top of each article and the main topic in the first sentence. This is technically a proxy nom, I'll paste a users' comments that were accidentally placed at STFD. –xeno^talk 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how to do this but I believe this template should probably be deleted - Template:Speedcar Series seasons. The motor racing series is now defunct and the template only features links to two seasons. Every page in which this template is on has links to the seasons pages anyway so as far as I can see this template is obsolete and should be removed. Is someone going to see it gets done? Officially Mr X (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A navbox isn't needed for just three links even if the series was still active. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom, w/3 links isn't needed. Skier Dude (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (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 Pakistan district

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 delete - replace with {{infobox settlement}}. JPG-GR (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pakistan district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For the same reasons that the tehsil and union council templates were deleted. Standard infoboxes are more flexible not to mention more presentable. This template is flawed, in many cases where there is a parameter missing it displays the ugly {province} and that kind of syntax. They need cleaning up and converting to standard. Himalayan 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the template needs a bit of work (as do the articles that use them), but do we really need to homogenise everything? Different infoboxes, I think, give some character to various articles. For instance the Alabama article uses the Template:Infobox U.S. state, the article on Bern uses template:Infobox Swiss town, Tasmania uses template:Australia state or territory. I think the real issue is that WP Pakistan could do with a bit of help. Pahari Sahib 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In so far as we need to prevent redundancy and duplication, and the additional maintenance overhead that they bring, yes, we do need to homogenise. We're building an encyclopedia, not a box of chocolates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this template should be kept. I agree with user Pahari Sahib. This infobox suits the articles well and doesnt need to homogenised. --Fast track (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Lahore District. Now check out Khushab District. It just looks so much tidier and clean. The thing about thie standard template is it is completely versatile, see Attock District, you can basically add whatever you want to it, plus it looks sooo much cleaner. Himalayan 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there a specific reason for not trying to homogenize everything? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 12:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace all uses with {{infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (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 Amphoe

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Amphoe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a weak template that is inflexible and doesn't allow outside editors who are unfamiliar with the template how to add photos or a location map of Thailand to get some idea where it actually is. I've added a standard template to Amphoe Doi Saket and an example which I believe is a considerable improvement and relays much more info in the box, not to mention looking of a higher standard. I think the template should be switched in the way it has been for Amphoe Doi Saket. Compare it to Amphoe Mae Taeng for example. I would also recommend switching the png maps with a higher quality svg. The creator of these articles has evidently done a lot of great work in this area, I don't want to seem like I am inruding on his turf or anything. If nobody agrees with a location map to see where it is in Thailand that can be removed but I would still recommend converting to standard. Himalayan 11:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC) August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete infobox settlement appears to do the trick. Skier Dude (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite surprised why noone considered notifying about this move in either the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thai districts or at least notify the original and main author. One big drawback of the other template is that the new infobox is longer than most articles, and the source code is longer than the first editing page making it even more confusing for new editors. andy (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (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 of upazilas

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox of upazilas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Difficult template to manage or follow when you want to add more details, inflexible. Unnecessary and redundant, should be replaced with a standard Template:Infobox settlement and standard pushpin pin map for Bangladesh as I have done for Kumarkhali Upazila. Upazila should be written into the blue bar in the standard settlement template as you see in many articles. Working towards consistency is the best thing.. Himalayan 10:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems fine to delete this, but there are many transclusions, bot needed here. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace w/ infobox settlement. Skier Dude (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (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:Conflicting

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 redirect. User:Rich Farmbrough appears to have closed this early by redirecting the template to {{Contradict}}. Equazcion (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems redundant to {{Contradict}}, which is far more mature and widely used. —Caesura ^(t) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The handful of cases where it is used can easily be replaced with {{Contradict}}. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the existence of this template seems to contradict itself ;). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant. Appears to have been redirected already though. Equazcion (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2009 (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.