Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Template:Sumerian rulers, Template:Notable Sumerians

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

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created by banned user sockpuppets; also duplicate info on Template Notable Rulers of Sumer, which said banned user had repeatedly refused to discuss before changing Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion notice wasn't added to the templates themselves. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was repeatedly added to both, but you must have been looking at them after the sock's turn in the edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template is well laid out and provides valuable information. There appears to be a history of personal antagonism here, which should not influence the retention of a practical research tool.210.246.8.125 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if I should withdraw my nom for the first one, reluctantly... I concede her work on it is impressive, and could be potentially useful, mainly for listing minor kings still lacking articles as convenient redlinks -- but, would it still be proper to keep it, even though the creator has been banned by the community for crossing the policy lines a few times too many? As for the second template, it is essentially Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer, only done her way (see the history of that template; there was much consternation 3-4 months ago over her unbending insistence that the navbox be remade into an infobox) and the template seems just a way to game the outcome of that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the Sumerian rulers template. I didn't know there was a specific site for deleting templates (rather than just articles) until I noticed the Template:Lifetime was being proposed for deletion. Anyway, the Sumerian rulers template seems reasonable. It is small and compact...not one of those huge ugly templates that totally dominates an article. It would be useful for listing some of the less well known Sumerian rulers as you note. As for Template:Notable Sumerians, I have no opinion here. It would be useful if the-predynastic Sumerian kings are mentioned in a site specific template just for them or if the Sumerian rulers template could apply to them. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a closer look (forgot to click on 'View') for the Template:Sumerian rulers. It DOES cover the pre-dynastic Sumerian kings. Its not compact but its very detailed and well laid out. In this case. I would reiterate my vote to keep the Sumerian rulers template. But, the Notable Sumerians template can be deleted since it is repetitious. Why? It already covers something that the first tag addresses. Artene50 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and speaking for the second Template:Notable Sumerians, an infobox format would work in places where the current template would not, such as in the Sumer article. Atisketatasket (talk) 02:43, 29 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:Little Rock neighborhoods

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 merge/delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another template already exists. See Template:Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods. This template was made much later than Template:Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods and is the reason why I nominated it for deletion. Reorion (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete completely redundant to {{Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods}}. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep/Comment~~ ~~- The template suggested for deletion is the one that is actually being used. I would gladly support deleting the old template instead.~~ Broooooooce (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Merge forgot that I can merge an article. An admin can close this deletion as I'll merge it.
Delete/Comment - I've corrected the links in all of the existing neighborhood articles to the actual template we are using now, the template for deletion may be removed entirely without harming any existing articles. Broooooooce (talk) 20:45, 21 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:Male Golf Tour Leaders

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! 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template requires weekly updates but content has not been updated since February. As the community has not seen the need to keep the information in this template current then this template can be deleted — Catchpole (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems useless if it's out of date, but with some updating it could be worthy of keeping. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather unfeasible to require weekly updates, and hasn't been updated since February. Becomes next to useless when out of date. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:23, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete A nifty idea, but one that completely breaks down when it isn't updated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 22 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:AmEng notice

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! 08:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike {{American-English}} and {{British-English}}, which are designed for use on article talk pages, these two self-referential templates are designed for use on articles themselves. While article message boxes are an exception to the rule that there should be no disclaimers in articles, the exception applies only to message boxes that are intended to be temporary (that is, the message boxes highlight a particular issue that needs to be addressed; when the issue is addressed, the box should be removed). The disclaimer contained in these templates, however, is not a temporary one. On the whole, this type of notice will only add to the template/notice clutter that exists on so many articles and is likely to distract readers from the content of articles by focusing their attention on the spelling of words. A talk page notice (or a hidden notice visible only in the edit window) for editors is one thing, but I don't think a prominently-displayed notice for readers is a good idea. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because the purpose of the notices is better served by {{American-English}} and {{British-English}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom and Skeezix1000 pretty much said it all. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly useless. —An gr 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this type of self-referential template is not appropriate for articlespace. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Very clearly breaks WP:NDA. Roguegeek (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a disclaimer as described in WP:NDA. Dosn't disclaim anything. It explains why the articles are written as they are. The Bicycle and Motorcycle articles, for which they were developed, receive a steady flow of needless edits due to the versions of English in which they are written. These templates attempt to prevent at least the well-meaning ones. Templates on the talk page only work for editors savvy enough to check the talk page first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The disclaimer is one that we don't need on the actual articles. To address the examples above, popping these templates on it won't prevent people from editing when they "know" that they're "right". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous and needless template proliferation. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per above. Jared Preston (talk) 12:00, 24 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.