Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Template:Great American Songbook

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great American Songbook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Regardless of the merits of having such a template, this one is simply way too big: It has 380 entries. And while I'm not an expert on this topic, who gets added to that list seems entirely subjective, too. As usual, a (referenced) list seems like a much better idea to me in this case. --Conti|✉ 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem harmful or useless, but it is a bit overwhelming. I think the suggestion of a list article (or perhaps a category) is appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen this template around a lot, and it is both enormous and highly subjective. Get rid of it. 98.111.226.106 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this, and it survived a vote for deletion, when it had a hell of a lot less names. It has got to the point where anyone who sang anything is on the list. Problem is, this was "pop music" pre-Elvis, so it will be massive. It is tres subjective, and messy. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{db-author}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that only works if there are no other authors/editors. --Conti|✉ 19:18, 21 August 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:Golf Course 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golf Course Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate and redundant to {{Infobox Golf Facility}}. _wjemather ^bigissue 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not familiar with what is considered relevant content for a golf article, but this template does seem to have different fields than {{Infobox Golf Facility}}. Are these additional fields unused/unencyclopedic, or is there perhaps a need to expand the other template? --RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but most of the extra fields are commercial information, non-noteworthy trivia, and directory listing information (pro, director, greenkeeper, most of the tech details, and the entire facilities section). There is a possible case for expanding the existing template but it is quite long already (and was recently made even longer). This template was created by a user who seemed intent on creating articles for every golf course in Portugal and it is only used on those articles. I am slowly working through the remaining ones that have not already been deleted, converting them to use the correct infobox. The existing infobox is probably in need of a rework, and I am playing around with it in the sandbox, but there is absolutely no need for this additional template. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree they are essentially duplicates, but I think I like this one more than the other. Or is that just being difficult? EJBH (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a golf course guide, and most of the fields in this infobox simply do not belong here. However, if there are fields you would like to see incorporated into the existing template, then suggest them on that talk page. Recommended reading: WP:IBX. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:24, 20 August 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.

Hide article

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hide article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hide article end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An inherantly bad idea. We already have a number of templates for collapsing content, but why would an entire article need to be hidden? Used only in one article. PC78 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Goes against the norms for article display, and doesn't seem useful for anything else. Note: It was created by the same editor that created the article it is used on. --RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 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.

London transport templates (part 2)

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk)

Template:Nearest Over (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nearest station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nearest DLR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These fulfil the same purpose as the deleted {{nearest tube}}, and are inappropriate for the same reasons as given in that template's TfD. Wikipedia isn't a guidebook, but putting material like this in bullet points encourages articles to be formatted like one (especially with the icon). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past discussion. Relevant transport information should be included in an article by using plain, custom-written text; templates such as these are a poorly suited to such a purpose and encourage articles to be written as bullet points rather than prose. The icons add unnecessary visual clutter and violate MOS:ICON. PC78 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 'subst' for removing these has to be done quite carefully. I was able to do this for {{nearest tube}}; unfortunately someone else will have to undertake the cleanup this time (health issues are enforcing a wikibreak). For my part, I continue to feel that these templates have a place since they standardise repetitive and lengthy information (Charing Cross -> Charing Cross Railway Station, for instance). With expansion of the template interchange and line information could be both provided and standardised. Hmm, icons ... They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon[s].
Essentially, there are two issues here: first whether anything like this is appropriate (and I accept what was said last time); and secondly, what information do you see going into these 'place' articles? If it's essentially the same detail - but without using a template, then I really do find these discussions a bit vacuous. Kbthompson (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified WP:LT and WP:London ... as a courtesy. Kbthompson (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment "what information do you see going into these 'place' articles?" - it isn't our duty to pad articles out for the sake of it. Travel guide information belongs on Wikitravel - the inclusion of information on how to get around an area is not necessary to describe it. Such "repetitive and lengthy information" by and large doesn't belong in articles in the first place, which is why we shouldn't be encouraging it with templates to add it, which is why I'm nominating these in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - see WP:UKCITIES#Transport. In any large city, you'll probably find a lot of this can be 'boilerplated'. I have no problem with eliminating pointless repetition, but unfortunately, some of this is both repetitive and lengthy and included to the standards of relevant projects within Cities. I also have no problem with moving towards a standard that is both informative and concise; can we try that approach rather than that of just eliminating what has potential uses?
    1. Icon - you're right should never be there
    2. Bullet points - eliminate any breaks and make the editor surround the template with the correct formatting for the sentence - has the potential to reduce "Canary Wharf docklands light railway station" to "Canary Wharf" (for instance).
    3. Chuck the kit and caboodle at WP:LT and WP:Lon and insist they come up with a scheme that is both useful and meets the criticisms Kbthompson (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modify to remove the icon. Subst templates are quite handy for standardising pieces of text that appear in lots of articles. However, icons should not really appear in the middle of the prose. MRSC (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As raised on the previous TfD, there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument for including boilerplate like this in articles in the first place. Designating these templates as being designed to be substituted rather misses the point, which is that we shouldn't be encouraging editors to create articles from clipart-style snippets of text in lieu of writing appropriate prose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The nearest transit station is almost never going to be a significant encyclopedic fact about the subject of an article, so the template just encourages the inclusion of trivia. As Chris Cunningham says above, this type of detail belongs on Wikitravel. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a big never, or one of those, well OK maybe if it's a settlement never? ... see WP:UKCITIES#Transport. This should play well at GA and FA ... Kbthompson (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Describing the transport facilities for a settlement is not what I would consider a case of "nearest station," but rather discussion of a feature of the community. (If a noteworthy theater is part of the settlement, it should be discussed, but we wouldn't use a "nearest theater" template for that.) I would hope that any relevant stations -- perhaps none, or perhaps more than just the nearest, depending on the circumstances -- are discussed in regular prose rather than with a bullet-point template. Are there any GA or FA articles using these templates? --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most settlements aren't centred on their local theatre; and anyway, although 'my nearest theatre' may be important to me, I doubt it has a particularly high valance for most people. As UKCITIES indicates, transport issues are a defining characteristic of communities. The vast majority of settlements within Greater London have a propinquity to an individual (or couple) railway, overground, underground station - which have certain standard properties such as management, line control, interchange that are lengthy tasks to write out manually - as there is also a need to differentiate between the different railway, tube, tram and overground stops - often with the same name. Much of that could be handled by an appropriately designed template - even making the distinction between 'propinquity' to 'nearness'! Kbthompson (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, "with an appropriately designed template". Not with an indeterminate number of bullet-point generators which have never had any usage guidelines and which are as a consequence presently simply stuck into articles at editors' discretion. Insomuch as their existence encourages such editing, they are counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If I recall, the original schema was supposed to be exposed to further discussion - that never happened - so, yes it was a half baked scheme. Thanks, now I understand the scope of your objection, I can live with it and hopefully we can put a proper proposal forward in one of the London forums to move it forward with something that meets criteria. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:40, 20 August 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:FPC

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burdensome, confusing, inconsistently applied and rather pointless - who looks at image pages anyway? See WT:FPC#Template:Db-fpcfail for some preliminary discussion. MER-C 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comments at the FPC:Talk discussion linked above. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the FPC fails, we don't have to keep a page hanging around on Wikipedia. Zoo Fari 05:16, 20 August 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.

SKSM route

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SKSM route/Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 1 (Metro) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SKSM route/Line 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded single-use infoboxes. Suggest subst and delete for all. PC78 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these already substituted? None of the ones I checked had any article links. If so, then delete as unused and redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it (wasn't me). PC78 (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I subst'd all of them while tracking down a bug in the parent template (missing end table tag). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 20 August 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.

Seoul Metropolitan Subway

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Bundang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gwacheon Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary duplication of {{Seoul Metropolitan Subway}}. All but the last two of these were deleted back in 2007 after being consolidated into the aforementioned template. PC78 (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are unnecessary duplications.--Crossmr (talk) 01:45, 23 August 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:Busan Subway

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Busan Subway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused red link farm. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 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.

Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Seoul Metropolitan Subway Line 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and already covered by existing templates. PC78 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 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.

Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway Line K1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each of these is being used only in Future of Korean Metropolitan Subway (itself a rather dubious article) and do nothing but repeat information already present there. Wholly unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I think someone's gone a little template-crazy. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 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.

Future of Korean Railway

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future of Honam Express Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Future of Gyeongbu Express Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As above, each is used only in Future of Korean Railway (another dubious article) and merely repeat what's already there. Unnecessary clutter. PC78 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 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.