Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 29

< April 28	April 30 >

April 29

Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe

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! 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is oversimplified. Just another template at the bottom of a country page. This information may all be viewed at the page for Romance languages. Please Delete. Also, more discussion of this nature may be viewed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe. --DerRichter (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)—[reply]

Comment - The footer navigtation template is used on these pages. I don't think its use as a footer template in France and Italy meets the requirements for the other footer navigtation templates. (1) What are the requirements for footer navigtation templates (provide link please) and (2) why does this template not meet them? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think adding another series nav footer to country articles that already have a lot of information to get across is poor style, and not in the spirit of WP:SERIES. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly adds information and only adds to the growing block of NAV templates in the country pages. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Serves no purpose. The Ogre (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arnoutf, even if (as seems to be the case) this template is intended to include only those countries where a Romance language is a/the national or official language. (I note this because, technically, one or more of the Romance languages is spoken in all European countries.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Janneman (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm and Arnoutf. Note to closing admin, please see and close the discussion about Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking_nations too - Nabla (talk) 21:40, 5 May 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:AL_postcode_area

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! 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates not used. Info already include in AL_postcode_area, AB_postcode_area and BA_postcode_area. — WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. These templates had a single-article use and now are useless. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. MRSC • Talk 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or History merge and delete . We should preserve the authorship information of these tables, per GFDL, as they have been copied into the articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you inspect the history for these templates, you will see that all the content was added in the initial creation of the template (and was just copied from the main article at that time) and all the further edits where just minor style changes, so the history doesn't really record anything useful. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:00, 30 April 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.

Northern Ireland ministers templates

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! 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following two templates should have been part of the nomination, as their creator kindly pointed out below

Template:Deminister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dfpminister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the creator has supported deletion, I hope it's OK to add these templates now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These templates relate to the ministers and govt departments of the Northern Ireland Executive, and I propose deletion of all them because they serve no useful purpose, and create unnecessary clutter on the articles in which they are placed, as well as misleading the reader.

The visual effect of these templates is similar to what might be done for an infobox on the article of each of departments - name of minister, and photo etc - and that use might be sensible, though I suggest that even in such a case they give far too much prominence to the senior minster. A more appropriate infobox for such a department would show the departmental logo and other details of the govt department (employee count, budget, address etc), and if photos of the ministers are to be include, they should be in the body of the article. All these departments also have junior ministers, whose role in running the dept can be significant, and if we add their photos too the box gets overloaded; if we don't, the dept's structure is misrepresented.

I don't see any useful purpose for these templates, but the thing which first prompted me to nominate them for deletion is that they are also being applied to articles related to that department. One example is Invest Northern Ireland, a non-departmental public body where ministerial involvement is limited to appointing the board[1]. That body operates at arms length from govt, and it's quite misleading to stamp it with the face of the minister in that way. Invest Northern Ireland is just one example, but I cannot see any other 0case of an article where these templates would be useful.

It probably would be useful to have a bottom-of-the-page navigation template listing govts depts and the public bodies which the sponsor, but that's an entirely different proposition to these place-the-minister's-photo-everywhere templates. Their creator has just left a note on my talkpage saying the departmental logo will be added to them, but that doesn't resolve the fundamental flaw that these templates are misconceived, and serve no useful purpose. I don't think that they can be redeemed; they should all be deleted, because they appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the structure of the public service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the inappropriateness of these boxes can be seen at Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. The NIAS's own website explains that it is structured as a trust, and so far I haven't found any mention on that site of the name of the minister, let alone a photo. (There may be one somewhere, but it's nowhere prominent). Yet the wikipedia article is now designed place the name and picture of the minister prominently on the page, as if it was his own fiefdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah it's clutter. I'd say give it 10 years :) Just not enough information to justify it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete each to most relevant article page and then delete. Then the layout and content, and use of a generic template, can be discussed on the Talk page of that article. Using individual templates for transcluding information across 2 or 3 articles (the bio summary of the incumbent minister in this case) is almost always a mistake and makes the encyclopedia harder to maintain, as has been established in several recent TFD discussions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't think that merger is appropriate or useful. The article on the departments may usefully have an infobox on the department, but not on the minister (that should be an entry in the infobox, not the subject of it, and in any case there are junior minsters as well). The articles on the minsters already have an appropriate infobox relevant to their careers: e.g. Margaret Ritchie (politician), the subject of Template:Dsdminister has an {{Infobox Politician}}, which is the normal practice for such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is convincing. There is no value in merging after all. I changed my response to delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My boldness has created quite a fuss! I think I should explain: My intention was to create user friendly interfaces about each department which would link to relevant departments, NDPB's, agencies and have information about minister information, civil servant and small Northern Ireland Executive logo, departmental logo and small ministers photo on each. I have been on Wikipedia for 5 days and I'm not sure whats right and whats wrong yet but it was worth a try. I except your views and think they should be deleted. I'll consider this part of the learning curve!--Nanometre (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right to be bold, and even more right to respond so openly to the criticism which has followed. Particularly when new to wikipedia, it can be very frustrating (and upsetting) to find one's hard work being challenged, and it's great to see a new editor so open to the rollercoaster ride of collaborative editing. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanometre, if you think your efforts might be useful in the future,(perhaps in a modified form) you could copy them to your userpage, to preserve them for your own reference. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hroðulf I will. I'll try again soon and hopefully get it right.--Nanometre (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The idea is good, but usually this is done with horizontal templates at the bottom of the page, not vertical templates that go along the side. What you've created is essentially a userbox. Try looking at some of the ones on George W. Bush at the bottom of the page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 1 May 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:NHLPlayoffs/Game

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! 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally for use with main NHLPlayoffs template, but now those functions have been combined directly into that template, thus leaving this template completely unused. Additionally, a better, more complete ice hockey summary that is more functional is also already available as the Ice Hockey Game. Additionally, I am the only author, so other objections are fairly unlikely. Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 17:13, 29 April 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:NHLPlayoffs/Single

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! 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already summarized by main NHLPlayoffs template, which can display single games and up to seven games, so this template is unnecessary.. Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 17:09, 29 April 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 Television station

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! 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's orphan. Seems like a dupe of a broadcasting infobox. Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 29 April 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 Television Network

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! 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's orphan. Seems like a dupe of a broadcasting template.. Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 29 April 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:Military-Insignia

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! 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long-deprecated license template that has been removed/replaced in all usages. Can also delete the redirects {{Military Insignia}} and {{Military-insignia}}, and the associated maintenance category Category:Military Insignia images needing copyright status check. Kelly ^hi! 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 17:31, 29 April 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:current motor sport

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! 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates the functionality of {{current sport}}. Transcluded on about 30 or so articles. Another example of proliferation of {{current}}. Yellowdesk (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Motor sports is significantly different from athletics. Wikipedia is not paper. Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motor sports is still a sport though. Hence the word sport in Motor Sports. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Suggest Improvement. Some more misplaced enthusiasm. I think people are really into the graphics end of things, and not the content of articles. If this template is proliferating, maybe some more options are needed on the current sport template to customize for the particular sport and maybe that would stop the proliferation. Alaney2k (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me count the other ways some sport might be "different:" sports in which the particpant relies upon more than her own body. "Athletic" does not encompass all sports. The list: Equestrian; Sailing; hang-gliding, ballooning, with some opportunity for quibbling about various other sports with tools provided by the partipant: archery, markmanship, pole-vaulting, and so on; then the varieties of motorized: automobile, motorcycle, water-skiing, airplane. I don't think it is desirable for a template of for each of these varieties of sporting activities. -- Yellowdesk (talk)

Keep How is wikipedia any better off with this template removed and all instances generecized? -Drdisque (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One is reduction in needless template proliferation. Actually, this template is superfluous, as it does not add content to an article. An article's prose is capable of indicating the contingency of the information. It is unremarkable that any Wikipedia article may be subject to change.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggestion. Template links to the same Current sports events and adds the articles in the same category as {{current sport}}. if the importance of the template is having the helmet instead of the ball then {{current sport}} can be made to cover both. I made a version of how this could work in my sandbox, what do you think? Chris Ssk _talk 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template brings two messages to the reader. 1: The article contains information on some current activity. 2: The information in the article may change. Both these messages could be applied to any country article, or any article about a living person. Should a similar template be added to George W. Bush and Sweden? The first message adds absolutely nothing. The fact that the topic is an current event is in almost every case perfectly clear from the very first sentence of the article. And the second message is a disclaimer. Every article on Wikipiedia is subject to change, and we should not point that out for only a small subset of articles. In any case, the template is redundant to {{current sport}} or {{current}}. --Kildor (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like Chris's solution. Reason why i created this template was because there was another similar template in place. Can't really remember which is it now. - oahiyeel ^talk 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not see the point of removing this template if only to replace it with {{current sport}} or {{current}}. I would rather see NO banner at the top of the page, however I think leaving it as it is is the second best option. Replacing it with a generic template is a ridiculous suggestion. - ARC Gritt^TALK 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that the banners should be removed. But if some people really have to tag articles, I would rather prefer that there is a limited set of such templates, instead of having hundreds of similar templates, one for every kind of event or sport there is. --Kildor (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not paper, both {{current sport}} & {{current}} are transcluded to >250 pages & should be split down into more specialist templates with associated categories which would be more managable by the various project teams such as the motor sport team. MGSpiller (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper either. And in fact, the {{current}} template is only used in 2 articles for the moment ([2]). The template was never intended to be used on every article with some recent news or update (see Template:Current#Guidelines). As said before, this template does not add to the article, and it is merely a disclaimer. If "current templates" were to be used on every article with some recent information about the topic, I could see the point of having more specialist templates. And we would probably need to have something like {{living person}} on articles about George W. Bush and Madonna. But I don't think that Wikipedia would benefit from such development. The lead of the 2008 Formula One season article clearly indicates that it is about an ongoing event. The {{current motor sport}} template is not needed in order to provide that kind of information. --Kildor (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expected {{living person}} to appear as a red link above. But it has already been created - although not yet used in any article. --Kildor (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{living person}} is part of a dead-end conversation about Category:Living people. See Category_talk:Living_people/Archive_2#Template. That category, by the way has more than 270,000 members, and no sub-categories have been accepted for it either. That template is ripe for deletion, it's not going to be implemented. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Suggestion I'll support the idea to delete the "lesser sports" templates, but Keep the Template:Current sport template...and...someone with graphics savy change the logo icon from a soccer ball to a collage of selected sports-related icons...say, a soccer ball, a football, a baseball, and a steering wheel (or a tire, or a car, or a checkered flag) to show it represents a wide range of sports, and not just "athletic" sports. Doctorindy (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use Chris' idea The fact is the the {{Current Sport}} featuring a football has nothing to do with motor racing, I suggest we use Chris' idea and expand it to other specialist sports.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five similar templates have recently been deleted ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]), and I see little reason to keep this one. If {{current sport}} needs to be changed to have a sport neutral icon, I suggest the very simple solution to use Image:Gnome globe current event.svg (the one used for {{current}}). And I have yet not seen any arguments for using this template at all. Why do we need to inform readers that the "information may change", if the message is not required for more frequently updated articles about countries and important living persons? The message that "many articles contain errors" and "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever" is already available through the Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, accessible at the bottom of every page.

I also recommend reading the following two essays related to this discussion (although not directly about this specific template):

User:Unschool/The "Recent Death" Tag

User:Shanes/Why tags are evil

--Kildor (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use current sport. --Magioladitis (talk) 18:46, 2 May 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.