Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

[edit]

Template:Zoo logos and other

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commercial logo, Template:Computer hardware logo, Template:DisneyLogo, Template:Event logo, Template:Game-logo, Template:Govt-logo, Template:MPAA-logo, Template:OFLCA-logo, Template:PreK12-logo, Template:Political party trademark, Template:Radiologo, Template:Schoolboard-logo, Template:Scoutlogo, Template:Sports-logo, Template:Tv-program-logo, Template:Univ-logo, Template:Zoo logos

They are redundant and should be redirected to Template:Logo. They all have almost the same text, usually, the only difference being that they have replaced the generic "organization" with "foo", something more specific. bogdan 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful for automatic categorization, despite text similarities. -Drdisque 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if for no other reason than that they split out the categories, which is handy for bad image patrol. I wouldn't see a problem with condensing them down to {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|scout}}, {{logo|disney}}, etc, for purposes of only having to maintain the text in one place ... but really, that's a solution looking for a problem and if someone wants to take that on, they don't need TFD to do it. But really, we need the categories. BigDT 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these templates are redundant. - Francis Tyers · 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total template creep - crz crztalk 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a problem? We have eleventy billion stub templates and accompanying stub categories. They serve the same purpose - allowing someone to quickly patrol for one kind of thing. Personally, I would think we would want to subdivide fair use images as MUCH as possible so that if, as has happened with promo photos, the community decides one class of image is no longer appropriate, we can quickly patrol that class and tag them for deletion. As long as we can still categorize everything (meaning, that we modify logo to take parameters like {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|scout}}, {{logo|disney}}, etc), I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. I just think it's pointless change for the sake of change. If we lose the ability to categorize, though, that's a real problem. BigDT 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think they are useful for categorization, but perhaps could be streamlined/condensed. Jogurney 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there some problem with the way they are now? I think BigDT has adequately explained why it's good to keep them. I think this is really a solution looking for a problem. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kind of organisation is an important part of keeping fair use managable.Geni 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They are useful for distinct categorization, in that they split out the categories, but perhaps they could be streamlined/condensed.--Evb-wiki 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of them can be occasionally useful, and even for the ones that haven't been yet, they don't hurt that much. I wouldn't be opposed to merging some that had a very small number of members though. - cohesion 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sigh. Auto-cating feature is certainly a reason to have a template, albeit with minor diffs. // FrankB 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorizations are helpful - so long as we're not talking about a category of one or two images, I don't see the problem here. --Chancemichaels 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]
Keep. Specificity, with regard to legal matters, is a good thing. Cribcage 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cribcage above. If the MPAA sues us and we have to get rid of all their logos, that doesn't mean Disney has also sued us and that we have to get rid of all their logos too. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a good idea to keep most template for legal reasons --82.152.98.56 19:14, 17 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:South Australia

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Un-necessary and redudant with {{LGASA}} and other more specialised navigational templates.cj | talk 21:32, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Regency of Bengkalis

[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete, but I'm going to ask the creator if they want it userfying (and the other two pages). Martinp23 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Regency of Bengkalis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has been replaced by Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia. Caniago 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CattleGirl talk | e@ 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Move to User page -- New user (ALERT!!!), stubbing article, which some admin needs to look into per WP:BITE. Ditto for the Article stub by same See Me iwan where Bupati and Head of Regency (Bupati) were apparently speedy-D'd...
       Knowledge of template creation, image upload (self-created), and such factors 'Smells' of a foreign language user with experience on another language's sisterpedia trying to expand our coverage with inadequate language skills, or a translation problem with alternative forms of wording. Strong Suggest both those articles be made available on his user pages as subpages while in rough form, along with this template. It would be basic courtesy. // FrankB 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but the Regency of Bengkalis template was created before we had a Regency of Indonesia template, so it is now redundant. I don't see how it would be of any use to anyone, including the author. (Caniago 16:46, 14 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Test8

[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Luna Santin. Whispering 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was created from Template:Test7, has been edited, and is now inappropriate for wikipedia (sorry if it hasn't come up on the page well but the method didn't work well with me). Tom the Boffin 08:20, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Pokerefs

[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 page.

The result of the debate was catch in a Poké Ball and throw out the window delete. Titoxd(?!?) 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokerefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a bad idea. Lists of references used should not be built by template. -Amarkov blahedits 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an unnecessary template and was used back then to fix notability problems. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you serious? People actually used a template listing of sources to "fix" notability problems? That's stupid. -Amarkov blah
      • Comment. Yup, when numerous Pokémon articles (mostly B-class or stubs) were on grounds of deletion for not being notable, the template was originally template-linked (and not even subst like it's used for now) to show that they were. Most Pokémon articles have advanced since then, and so the template is rather useless. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edits 15:46, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Istanbul Stock Exchange companies

[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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, but I think there is a consensus for the template to be converted to a category if, in the future, it becomes too unwieldy. Martinp23 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Istanbul Stock Exchange companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This should be a category, not a template. If we created a template with every company on the LSE or NYSE it would be larger than many pages in Wikipedia. --DB (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Assuming the other 306 companies actually were added, we'd get a huge template for no apparent reason. -Amarkov blahedits 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This should be a larger category. CattleGirl talk | e@ 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is a data template transcluded into many (16) articles... the purpose of a template for Pete's sake!
         2.) Since when were titles of templates necessarily reflective of their utility, or overall content? There is no guideline that I know of that would require any template to be expanded to add all of something. These sorts of decisions are the right and proper province of the editors working on a project and utilizing the template, not this ad hoc body with floating membership! In sum, this should not have been considered for nomination at all, much less nominated.
         3.) Consider the discussions around Template:Groundbreaking submarines(edit talk links history) back in July, which was a fight where I had a direct pov. Were the above logic to be applied, the discussions (And much deliberatively measured and considered work by many!!!) as evidenced on that talk and would also be subject to deletion as being a 'larger category'. If you want an larger one, add a two on the end, and compose a second template for when and if it's applicable. Don't nominate a tool in use in ten sixteen or so articles—that's a perfect example of using templates well and wisely! Sheesh! // FrankB 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of things: first and foremost, try to remain calm. Second of all, no article is the "right and proper province" of any person or group. All users own all pages equally. Third, every article, project, and group has a floating membership. Fourth, all rules and standards apply equally everywhere so if someone finds a page needs to be deleted they can nominate it regardless of their contribution history. There are no walled gardens on this site. Koweja 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Should the template get too large renominate and we'll deal with it then. A hypothetical situation is not a reason to delete. Koweja 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Koweja, personally I think you can delete on hypothetical grounds, but don't see any rush here. At the moment the template is functional and in due course it can be upgraded to a category... Addhoc 17:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not proposing deletion on hypothetical grounds, anyway. There's no need for a template for something like this. A category would be perfectly appropriate. That's what's been done with other stock exchanges. Furthermore, the items listed in a template should have something in common with each other (aside from just being in the same country). DB (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Clearleft

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Patstuarttalk|edits 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clearleft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless, covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Clearright

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Patstuarttalk|edits 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clearright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is protected so I have not {{tfd}}ed it, but it's covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Clear

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep, as consensus suggests this is different than {{-}} and quite useful. -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is protected so I have not {{tfd}}ed it, but it's covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the vote of the creater of the tfd → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**We do not need the templates, the by typing a few keystrokes, we can clear it.100110100 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Repeat Comment User:Poorleno[reply]

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This, while avoiding issues on the article's main screen. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brainless nomination, No Brainer Keep -- This is an important template and used in a lot in problematic work arounds when wiki-markup is misbehaving on one browser or another, and especially as a debuging and isolation tool.
       It may not included directly in a lot of pages when used in the later way, but it is utilized for that a lot in iterim development of graphics heavy templates. Even some not so graphics heavy--tables too!
       Please stop wasting everyone's time by nominating protected templates. A little forthought would suggest that anything which is protected probably has a good reason for being. 100110100 needs to find somethings to edit instead of attacking the work of others. // FrankB 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the point of the wiki markup is so we don't have to use HTML/CSS syntax. This is very useful and not covered by any other template. Koweja 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful workaround for getting under an image or similar. It's much more useful than <br>. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Royalguard11. Agree per FrankB that 100110100 should write a featured article before nominating any other templates that work ok for deletion on purely technical grounds... Addhoc 14:42, 16 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Reporting marks

[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 page.

The result of the debate was redirected. Titoxd(?!?) 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reporting marks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do we really need this one along with Template:Reporting mark? The only difference appears to be an 's', which could possibly be added to the other one. Jason McHuff 04:02, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:WikiFur

[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 page.

The result of the debate was On the one hand, people are saying that this is needed for GDFL compliance - on the other, people are saying that it's not used at all in article space. Although there is a no consensus for deletion, I think there's a consensus amongst all the comments for it to be shrunk and cleaned up. Martinp23 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiFur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this exist when WikiFur has been deleted four times. - ∅ (∅), 03:09, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:TOC-right

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 20:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC-right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only user pages link to this template, & obviously since this is a redirct, that means this is a redundant template.100110100 02:26, 10 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:TOC-left

[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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC-left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned template.100110100 02:02, 10 December 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_10&oldid=1084290743"