Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 7

< July 6	July 8 >

July 7, 2006[edit]

Template:Horta[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been replaced by Template:Parishes of Horta, which is named and formatted like the remaining Portuguese "parishes by municipality" templates. Mário 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:X-Files seasons[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmortem note: I've restored and relisted the template fora few more days -- Drini 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All 9 seasons have been merged into one article without objections. Therefore, this template serves no purpose. See Talk:List_of_The_X-Files_episodes Will2k 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge still in discussion and until final it would not be good to delete this --Mahoga n y 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xchrisblackx. Sophy's Duckling 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:MilitaryAirfield frame Template:MilitaryAirfield data Template:MilitaryAirfield title et al[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have only been used in Tiksi Airport (since replaced with airport infobox) and the creator has not edited since November 2005. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all MilitaryAirfield templates per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - They seem to be useless. Mário 11:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominations. Sophy's Duckling 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Interstate 95/Florida exit list[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Jaranda (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). — TKD::Talk 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is being used to transclude a large table into I-95 exit list and Interstate 95 in Florida. According to Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." This is being used solely as a template to transclude article content, when simply placing it in Interstate 95 in Florida and linking there on I-95 exit list will do the same thing. --SPUI (T - C) 10:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long tables like this are best kept separately, they can make other parts of the article nearly uneditable otherwise. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep.~~ This isn't in the template namespace, the header above was made using a piped link. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I only piped the title so the link in the TFD template jumps here. --SPUI (T - C) 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know some odd-sounding seagulls that would be mighty offended by that comment.

In all seriousness though, no, it's not a template, if for no other reason than because it's not in the template namespace. The reason you cited applies only to the Template namespace, that's why it's called Wikipedia:Template namespace. This is straight article transclusion, as discussed on Talk:I-95 exit list, and which as far as I can tell, you supported at the time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never supported it. If you want me to take it to VFD, I'm sure it will be deleted as a transcluded-only page. --SPUI (T - C) 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I had always been told that content should not be transcluded in this way, but personally I see no problem with this. I might play around with the placement of the edit link." - Northenglish (talk) -- 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please userfy. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to, as it's article content in the article namespace. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst I-95 exit list into Interstate 95 in Florida and delete I-95 exit list. Transclusion adds a layer of complexity. --Usgnus 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Move to template space. --Usgnus 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was in template space at Template:Interstate 95 in Virginia exit list, it was moved recently to article space. Couldn't this be considered a "common section" listed as one of the uses of templates at Help:Template? Gimmetrow 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. The transclusion is no longer necessary, and I-95 exit list is now a redirect. That being said, I'm confused as to why this wasn't speedily kept since it's not actually a template. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:MLB HoF[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 page.

The result of the debate was Supermajority Keep --William Allen Simpson 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used to add an unattractive picture in random locations in articles. There is a perfectly good Category:Baseball Hall of Fame, and notifying readers that someone belongs to a group that is too large to be listed in or on the article is job of categories, not templates. If this is keepable, why not have a similar template for every category? Then some people could have thirty small unattractive pictures scattered randomly around their article! Not a good idea. Chicheley 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chicheley 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under T1 - it's a userbox for articles. --SPUI (T - C) 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T1 says nothing about userboxes for articles; this template is neither divisive nor inflammatory. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry - I thought my comment was an obvious joke. --SPUI (T - C) 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are good enough. —Mi ra 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have always thought that they add a nice aesthetic touch to the articles. I do agree with Chicheley's point about vigilance against every cat having such a template, but this one and maybe a select handful of other HoFs. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why should they be on hall of famer articles, but not on other articles? (and they certainly shouldn't be on other articles imo). Sumahoy 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure if anons can vote but it already survived a deletion nomination 14 Feb 2006 if that matters. --207.230.48.1 03:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is in my opinion, very useful to determine who's in the hall of fame and who's not. Using them in categories would confuse people, and some vandals would add people to the Hall of Fame via categories if it weren't for this template. --VelairWight (my discussion) 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is to stop vandals adding the template? Sumahoy 12:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check the discussion. There were concerns about the copyright issues of using the actual HOF logo. HOF Spokesperson said it was OK, but somebody felt it might be non-fair-use in situations where wikipedia gets ported into commercial content, and/or is sold in hardcopy form. The picture was ugly as sin, but the logo looks terrific, and adds a great accent to the (far too many) HOFer biographies that are lighter in content than most wikipedia articles. -Ender78 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Strong Keep per Seidenstud. --*kate 10:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and a bad precedent. Sumahoy 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't we just have a category? Sophy's Duckling 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. For MLB players, being in the HoF is a very significant distinction. Having something like this, more than just a cat is absolutely appropriate. The picture may be "unattractive," but it is by no means ugly and distracting enough to warrant removal of the template completely. And besides, if the pic is so bad, it can easil be replaced by a new photo. Destroying the template is not the best answer. -Seidenstud 23:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Seidenstud. SushiGeek 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd change to Strong Keep if someone could come up with a good all-purpose baseball player template that includes this pic instead of the varying formats I've seen floating about. As the last section of a larger template I think it could look a lot better. - Fractalchez 05:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Seidenstud --rogerd 20:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry baseball fans, but I agree it makes the pages look horrible. I think it would be better as just a category, or at least standardize the image so that it's displayed at the bottom of the page or something. --Liface 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this breaks up the text in an ugly way. We already have the category. Andrew Levine 09:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ugly picture of a building. This is a completely pointless template unless the logo is used. Gamaliel 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I commented it was the logo. I have to agree that if the logo is indeed not fair use for such a template, it should probably be deleted. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; again note that the previous move for deletion [1] failed. As for complaints about the "ugly picture", it's being used because the HoF logo was deemed unacceptable under fair use despite official OK (see Ender78 comment above; and Ender should know, if they're who I think they are). Perhaps the location on each page should be standard (near the top), but otherwise no problem. Putting it near the bottom would really just duplicate the presence of the category. Since many of the articles for members are rather extensive, it's a good way to have notation both at the top and bottom. MisfitToys 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Seidenstud — Michael J 03:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about the following design... ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Player X
is a member of
the Baseball
Hall of Fame

Comment - Player mugshots aren't always easy to come by, especially with players from earlier in the 20th century. Also, it visually does not correlate to the Baseball Hall of Fame, so as a visual aid it's sort of pointless. I heavily discourage using any image other than one signifying the HoF. --Mike Tigas 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not so sure that the new proposed logo is meant to have the mugshot of each player whose article uses the template. My interpretation was that the antique-looking tobacco card photo of Honus Wagner, one of the original inductees into the HoF, would simply serve as an iconic symbol for all HoF players. -Seidenstud 12:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Honus was just an obvious pick, there are others we can use from the LoC collection without worries about copyright. ~ trialsanderrors 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't like this either, but it's slightly better. Then you just get confused people saying "Is that what that player looks like?" and "Why is there a picture of some guy on my page?" --Liface 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as per Seidenstud; and as Ender78 said, the template originally used the HoF logo which Wikipedia has been granted permission to use. IMO, Wikipedia has the ability to use this as I do not read Wikipedia:Logos as prohibiting this, in the case of third-party uses of Wikipedia or what have you. ----Mike Tigas 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful formatting tool, no viable rational for deletion. WilyD 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are useful and important additions to the articles, discussions about formatting and copyright notwithstanding. ~ trialsanderrors 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a redesign seems to be in order. —pfahlstrom 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supplies no information that category membership doesn't provide.--M @r ē ino 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be kept, it shows off the dedication of their carrers better than text at the bottom of the page in form of a category would. DavidReject
Strong keep Useful to know and adds to the page. Irregulargalaxies 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an ugly, useless picture that adds nothing and distracts from the articles. Hayford Peirce 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reverted the picture, once again, to the Official Logo of the MLB HoF, and added my reasoning to the talk page. Given the two separate votes on this minor template, perhaps it is time to seek the "case-by-case" exemption from the FUC policy. Further, I submit that the "this template is a candidate for deletion" blurb that is now on every single affected player biography is far, far, uglier than even the unsightly winter picture of the HoF Main Entrance formerly housed within this template. Ender78 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for reasons given above. Kgwo1972 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as everyone else. -- GWO

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.