Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

Template:Gods of Ulthuan

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gods of Ulthuan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The main articles that make up this template have either been deleted or redirected. It doesn't serve any kind of navigational purpose. TTN (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does indeed serve no purpose as all its links point to one page. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator ☺ Spiby ☻ 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete points to non-notable concepts that are unlikely to be created again in a way that meets our policy/guidelines. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 22 November 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:Phoenix kings

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phoenix kings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is completely unnecessary. Only four articles on it actually exist as articles (they are up for deletion and they will most likely be deleted and redirected in the end), and it is unlikely that the rest of them will ever function as actual articles. TTN (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the articles it used to contain have been deleted or redirected, so there is no need for the template. Terraxos (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete points to non-notable concepts that are unlikely to be created again in a way that meets our policy/guidelines. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 22 November 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:Atrus heritage (Myst)

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atrus heritage (Myst) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is no longer used anywhere. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of these articles exist anymore, so there's no need to have a box to navigate between them. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete points to non-notable concepts that are unlikely to be created again in a way that meets our policy/guidelines. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 22 November 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:Updateneed

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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be redundant to Template:Update after, which defaults to behave very similarly to this. This template is less versatile and less categorized. Thin boy 00 @107, i.e. 01:33, 7 November 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! 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this template is redundant. Should be deleted and replaced with Update after or or redirected. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect redundant. Icewedge (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Update after}}, which is preferable for the reasons stated above. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous, copying functionality of {{update after}} -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:16, 28 November 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:Notable Women Generals in the U.S. Military

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. If you want to be bold and do a rename though, go for it. :) Wizardman 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Women Generals in the U.S. Military (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Firstly, "notable" is hard to define. Is it all female generals? Is it just "important" ones? And who decides what's important?

And also, it's not appropriate template fodder anyway. There is no reason to list all of these ladies on every one of their articles. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They all seem to be "notable" by something (eg: First women to archive rank of <>), Just needs to be converted to a {{navbox}} style footer and placed at the bottom of each article, Which i will start doing. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 07:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that that isn't defined anywhere. I'm just not sure there's a real reason for this template. Why link them together? I think a better idea would be to listify this where at least you can explain why they are being listed. The way it is, it looks like a random set of generals. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had initially used Notable in the title in the Wikipedia sense. If a women general officer qualifies as notable and has a Wikipedia article then she would be included in the class of "Notable women Generals in the U.S. Military". At the moment eight women are listed plus one naval flag officer. If the list grows to ~15 (where the navbox grows to three lines of names) or so then it makes sense to convert the navbox into a category and to get rid of the word Notable at the same time as category members, by definition, are only of notable articles. When the list gets to ~200 women then the category can be broken down by service (Army, Air Force, etc.). --Marc Kupper|talk 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to "Women flag officers in the US military" (per talk page because of RADM Grace Hopper). Useful for navigation, informative, there's not many entries, and there's no substantial sense of self-promotion attaching to the people in the list (the usual best reason for wanting to delete something like this). I'm not too concerned about lack of "notability" definitions since it's so rare for women to reach this level of the US military, that getting there at all is notable in its own right. If the template starts getting overlarge, worry about it then. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename - I created the template as some of the generals referenced others underneath "See Others" but the list varied from general to general. In a sense it's a category but I used a template as it allowed for a explanation/synopsis. I had used Notable in the title to keep the list restricted to people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Thus I'm using the Wikipedia definition for Notability as the inclusion standard. If Notable was removed from the title then we could convert this to a category which automatically means the listed people are notable otherwise they would not have Wikipedia articles. Admirals such as Grace Hopper should be included. Flag Officer seems to be more of naval term but how about Notable women Generals and Flag officers in the U.S. Military? --Marc Kupper|talk 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are over fifty women who have achieved flag rank in the US Navy alone. It is reasonable at this point in history to expect that each of them is notable in the sense of being eligible for a Wikipedia article, but when you combine that number with similar numbers in the Army and Air Force, as well as smaller numbers in the Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and NOAA, it may become an overwhelming number for a template. Mhjohns (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a woman flag or general officer is not notable in itself meaning we should not be seeing that many articles. If the navbox grows too large I imagine it'll be converted into a category. BTW, if you have citations for "over fifty women who have achieved flag rank in the US Navy alone" that would seem like a useful addition to an article such as Women in the military. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while being a woman flag or general officer may not be notable in itself, at this point in history, most women of flag rank are notable for various reasons. E. g., ten have held the position of Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, four others have been awarded a third star, others were first to flag in their warfare specialty or were the first women in various major command categories and still others were notable before or after making flag. Mhjohns (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Women in the United States Navy and many of the women also have individual Wikipedia articles. There are no similar pages listing women in other branches of the armed services meaning at present this template/navbox is the list for now. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to category or list under several points. First, it seems to duplicate the job of a category or a list, both of which would serve the purpose much better (you can link to the category if necessary by adding a colon (:) in the piped link). Second, it does seem almost an arbitrary distinction for a navbox: what makes female flag officers more deserving of a template than male flag officers? Third, notability isn't very well defined; simply being notable enough to have an article doesn't mean that thier notability is shared or similar enough to be associated together in a listing that isn't arbitrary. Lastly, where does this list end? There are far more female flag officers who are not listed (probably due to not having articles yet), so would this listing eventually baloon to include an obscene number of flag officer who are only related by the fact that they have two X chromosomes?
If we could tighten the criteria for inclusion to something that makes a better distinction other than gender and rank (such as "Directors of the Navy Nurse Corps" or something to do with women's rights), I would change my vote to keep as a template. Also, if this is kep/listified/whatever, the name "Female flag officers in the U.S. Military" would be best: flag officer is not strictly a naval term; it stems from the fact that generals/admirals in all five branches have personal flags displaying thier rank. Title 10 does make a distinguishment between general officers and flag officers, but I think the simplest approach here works best. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 18:39, 22 November 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:Warning archive 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 Keep. This template seems to be used almost exclusively on IP's talk pages, where its use is justified. Currently there is a consensus to keep this template (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warning archive notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific archiving template, negative focus. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't see why we should delete it - it could be used with no problem on a vandal's talk page. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 09:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what's so overly specific or negative about it in comparison to other templates. There are plenty of templates meant for use in dealing with repeat vandals. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:01, 20 Nov 2008 (UTC)

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:Sollog

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. So Why 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, hardcoded instance of {{Sockpuppet}}, used to mark alternate accounts of long-gone user. I believe current policy is against user-specific sockpuppet templates - for instance, it raises issues with WP:DENY. Also, the evidence link no longer works. I suggest substituting {{Sockpuppet}} for all instances of this template and deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this template brings back memories. But Sollog's in jail (or out again, I'm not sure), his article is gone, and it's time for this to go. Gamaliel (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 02:22, 26 November 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:Needs artist infobox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs artist infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, most WikiProject banners already handle this, also see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Needinfobox for a similar template. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Klein zach 05:32, 19 November 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.