Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

[edit]

Template:Highest ACE Atlantic hurricanes

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highest ACE Atlantic hurricanes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject doesn't put as much emphasis on ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy as it used to. The statistic is almost never used for individual hurricanes. Most of all, the template's "source" is actually an unsourced Wikipedia subpage listing of all ACE's for Atlantic hurricanes. So, after discussing it with some fellow editors, I propose deletion for this template. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - theres no point in having a template like that when its not used Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 9 April 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:Stargate SG-1 episodes

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stargate SG-1 episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with the episode list at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, and with {{Stargate}} in general. All episodes that actually do have articles (about 3 per season), link to the LoE in the infobox and the previous and next episodes, so most links in this template are redirects ot the season articles anyway. Episode numbers are rarely helpful for the average wikipedia reader. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC) – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 9 April 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:In space

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Here I am, again. I've nominated the template before, see here for details. Back then, the sole argument to keep this template was that it adds a category, Category:People currently in space. As you can see, it's a red link now, as it has been deleted in this recent CfD. So, to make things short: The template does not serve any purpose anymore. It's currently used on three articles (since that's the number of people in space right now), and it says "This article documents a person who is currently in space.", which, IMO, makes as much sense as a template saying "This article documents a person who is currently in the United States." It has a nice picture of an astronaut to the right, and a picture used for current events on the left, even though being in space is in no way a "current event", as defined by Template:Current. --Conti|✉ 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, highly visable and esay to maintain. No history of the template being badly manged. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to be rude, but did you even read my nomination? A template saying "This article documents a person who is currently in the United States." would be highly visible and easy to maintain, too. But how is that a reason to keep the template, when the point is that it is not useful for our readers. It adds no information that is not already there. It is in no way a "current"-template, either. It serves no purpose. --Conti|✉ 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, I must say I am shocked to find out that Category:People currently in space has been deleted. I find the nomination for both that category and this template extremely vague and I feel a deletion review might be in order for the category and a speedy keep for this template. Being in space is completely different to being in the United States. In space a person is part of a specific space mission which is highly notable and a current event, making the page subject to a high volume of edits. A highly visible template (as well as a maintained category) in those cases is useful to help editors who might otherwise not realise the subject of an article is in space. This template is extraordinarily well maintained and should be swiftly kept. Hera1187 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, let's examine your claims:
    • "In space a person is part of a specific space mission which is highly notable"
      • That's true, but irrelevant. Notability is used to examine whether we should have an article on something, not whether we should have a template about something. If the pope visits a country (which arguably is a notable thing, too), should we have a "This country is currently visited by the pope" template?
    • "(...) and a current event"
      • In a way, yes, it is a current event. But: It is not a "current event" as defined by the guidelines at Template:Current, as I've said already in the nomination (that no one seems to bother reading). There is no need to warn our readers about anything here, which is the actual purpose of a "current"-template.
    • "making the page subject to a high volume of edits"
      • Well, let's see:
        • Koichi Wakata has been edited 17 times since the template was added on March 16. That's about 0.7 edits per day.
        • Gennady Padalka has been edited 8 times since the template was added on March 26. That's about 0.6 edits per day.
        • Michael R. Barratt has been edited 13 times since the template was added on March 26. That's about 0.9 edits per day.
      • Do you still want to claim that these pages are subject to "a high volume of edits"?
    • "A highly visible template (...) is useful to help editors who might otherwise not realise the subject of an article is in space"
      • Why, again, do we want to tell our readers (and not our editors) that in a big, nice box, instead in.. oh, I dunno.. the actual article? It should be in the lead section anyhow, which is right below the template.
    • "This template is extraordinarily well maintained"
      • I never disputed that, but that's entirely besides the point.
    • --Conti|✉ 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is something newsworthy about a person in space that would be helpful for adding to the 'pedia, {{current}} will do. Otherwise per nom. – sgeureka t•c 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until a centralised discussion can be held on this issue. This is a valid temporal template, and there is currently no established policy or guideline to discourage use of valid temporal templates or categories. The template should not be deleted simply because the category has gone, as one of the precedents cited in the CFD was this, where one of the main proponents of deletion argued that temporal templates could still function without a category. This is just another example of the insidious attack on temporal templates and categories. I feel that such discussions are against the spirit of the community, as the proponents are trying to do away with an entire system of categorisation, without any centralised or well-publicised discussion on the issue. --GW… 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What an utterly pointless template. This is important enough to mention in the lead of the article but to have a large template for that on the article is really overkill. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another example of a proliferation of a variety of copy of {{current}}. The template is superfluous and the citations and text of the article are far more informative than the template can ever be. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the argument of it being useless. Nevermind there only being three people in space. Even if there was 20 or more, what purpose is there for a template that is just a lengthy way of saying the individual is an astronaut. Articles are generally current and the first sentence could easily read: 'John Q. Public is an American astronaut who is currently in space and is being pointlessly acknowledged with a template to reiterate the fact that he is in space.'

If there was an article on some celebrity who's in rehab, do we need a template to tell us the same thing as the article and the news? Templates generally are applied to articles and areas that either need some sort of revision or that needs to be carefully worded due to special circumstances e.g, a recent death . That being the case, the template does nothing to improve the article now or in the future. -Alan 24.186.126.227 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I like the template, but I see the rationale for deleting it. I can't make a good argument against deletion as long as we keep Template:People currently in space or restore the category (as a hidden category, perhaps) or *something*. My concern is that these these things are being deleted piecemeal, and so the need for some means for editors to keep track of these pages isn't being discussed. Without some means to track them, those ledes may not get updated in a timely manner, making that information unreliable and useless. jhf (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you just want to keep track of people in space, a wikiproject-banner-parameter on the talk page would be the best idea, I suppose. I'm sure there's Wikiproject Space or something similar, and their talk page template could be modified to include something like "in-space=yes", which would add a category to the talk page (not the actual article). I'm not sure if there's any real need to keep track of this, but that's probably for the wikiproject to decide. Anyhow.. the lede of Michael R. Barratt hasn't yet been updated, so the template isn't exactly doing a good job of encouraging our editors to update the articles in the first place, isn't it? --Conti|✉ 09:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think a lot of people felt {{in space}} covered that; I did. Come to think of it, I'm not sure we *should* be editing the lede for this: should we be editing actors' ledes to say what film they are working on, or the lede of Barack Obama to say he is currently (say) at Camp David? Maybe there's some consensus that we should; I'm sorry I wasn't aware of it.
Nonetheless, I am still not disputing the proposed deletion of this template. The idea that we shouldn't be tracking who is in space on wiki, or that it shouldn't be user-visible, I disagree with, but that's not germane to this discussion unless you intend to nominate the other temporal stuff for deletion too. jhf (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first question, if we don't need to edit the lead for that, then we really don't need to have a huge template either. Garion96 (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templates don't show up in the printable version, thus keeping the temporal information limited to a the online, dynamic version. But then, neither does the navbox, and it goes on the bottom, which hopefully addresses your (presumably) aesthetic concerns. jhf (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on the lede thing, but at least it's better to state the fact that someone is in space in the lead of an article, rather than in a big template on top of the lead. :) The point of templates on articles is that they are for our viewers, not our editors. Templates for our editors go to the talk page. Therefore, some kind of tracking tag (or category) for people in space should go to the talk page (unless it is being argued, as by some people above, that we need to inform our viewers about this fact with a big, friendly template). --Conti|✉ 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want make it clear that I am one of the people arguing that it *should* be user-visible; I am opposed to the idea that it needs to be limited to the talk page. But I'll accept that it does not need to be a big fat thing on top of the article: those are for warnings and disclaimers and such; okay. jhf (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As pointed out above, articles with this tag are not receiving a significant number of edits so a special top notice is not really needed. {{People currently in space}}, which I created, as a navbox at the bottom of the article will do a much better job going forward. It allows the display of all missions and adds material not provided by either the template being discussed here or in the category. I feel that people who are looking to see who is in space want more then a list of names. One interesting side effect of a navbox template here is that if you use the history function you can see who was in space at a time in the past. Too bad we did not have this earlier. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 19 April 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:Intertoto Cup 2007

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intertoto Cup 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The competition is defunct and the template itself is replaced by Intertoto Cup 2008 . Matthew_hk tc 08:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Consider to delete Template:Intertoto Cup 2008 as well once the season has ended. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:58, 12 April 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:GFDL-1.2

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-1.2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Firstly, we're trying to deprecate this license. There are no longer any images hosted locally Wikipedia using this license tag. ViperSnake151 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This tag is used by users who do not support Wikimedia's free content goal, trying to attach as many difficult conditions to their works to make them as un-reusable as possible. Support deletion here as a step toward global deprecation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not needed and problematic to boot. It'll be one less problem license tag to deal with during the license migration (which we'll only have 3 months to complete). Weak Keep. Probably better to deprecate. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - discussions are on-going about this and template:GFDL-1.2-en at template talk:GFDL-1.2-en, and general consensus at the moment is to deprecate these templates with appropriate wording, not delete them. Incidentally, the template was initially listed here without being tagged, hence the continued debate. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I neither agree that it should be deprecated as a license (it's still a free license) nor that it should be deleted (the images for which it applies are still, in theory, worthwhile). While we certainly should formally encourage people to use simpler licenses like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA), we shouldn't disallow valid free licenses where they don't actively cause problems. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We should do everything we can to actively discourage the use of GFDL 1.2-only licensing, but it happens that at the moment we still technically accept this as a license. Unless and until the English Wikipedia community decides as a whole to stop accepting GFDL 1.2 only licenses - which we should do as soon as possible - contributors are within their rights to choose this license, and that means there's still a technical use for this template. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and deprecate - This is not really the forum for this; deletion would be effectively a change in policy. As the consensus seems to be for deprecating and using CSD-F3 for these images, deletion would be against consensus. I was initially for deletion (which is why I cleared out the category), but deprecating is a better idea. And to counter above statements, this is not a free tag, and is less free than CC-Non-commercial, which is not allowed. Please read the discussion at template talk:GFDL-1.2-en to see the arguments. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of digging up old arguments, GFDL is free in that it allows unrestricted use for commercial and non-commercial re-use, including derivative works. However I admit it is difficult to use in practice, and if a better future-proof licence were available I would gladly use it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the consensus is to Keep, someone should close per WP:SNOW. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 14 April 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 toy

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep - template will be re-purposed for use by WP:TOYS. JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, basically a duplicate of Template:Infobox VG (Open the edit page for this template for deletion, read the code and you'll see almost every field has an equivalent at Infobox VG). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:44, 9 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_9&oldid=1138693291"