Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

March 31, 2006

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USTop10DMAs

Delete. --Golbez 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Bovineone 07:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --IronChris 23:30, 4 April 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.

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, keep Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single olympic sports

Template:Olympic Games Roque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Olympic Games Water Motorsports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Olympic Games Rackets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Olympic Games Jeu de Paume (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Olympic Games Croquet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Olympic Games Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While such templates aremost appropriate for sports like archery, I utterly and totally fail to see the use to these templates that can ultimately only be put on and link to a single page. Delete all Circeus 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, delete. A footer template is for navigation; these have no navigational purpose. --Golbez 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These templates are intended as part of the consistent style of the Olympic sport pages. Personally, I find it a bit jarring to see most of the articles have the two templates (Olympic Games SPORT and EventsAtYEARSEASONOlympics}} but then to come across one with only of the templates. If you don't think that's good enough reason to have the templates, then fair enough I suppose, but that's the use I see for them. -- Jonel | Speak 14:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While these templates aren't really meant for navigation (except the croquet one has a second link), I really think it makes the flow of the Olympic event pages fluent. It still signifys that it was an Olympic event on the said year, as most people who look at Olympics pages have gotten accustomed to looking at the bottom of events pages to see more info about that sport's Olympic history. I think that maybe a message should be added to the bottom saying it was only there for one year, or only some nations participated. THey should be kept though because that is how WP:OLYMPICS set it out. → J @red ^talk+ _ubx 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks weird, but keep for consistency's sake. If nothing else, it will allow reader to navigate between "X Sport at the Summer Olympics" and "X Sport at the Y Year Olympics." tiZom_(2¢) 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a sport only appeared at one games, I would hope that "X Sport at the Summer Olympics" redirects to "X Sport at the Y Year Olympics" (or vice versa) rather than having two pages with a need to navigate between them. Andrwsc 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that cricket and croquet do that. Haven't worked with the other templates, so I don't know on them. -- Jonel | Speak 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonel and Jared. Jfing ers88 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency. Sue Anne 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was quite surprised when I came across one of these for the first time. It seemed like overkill to me as I use these style of templates for navigation. I feel that many of the Olympic pages are much more verbose than they need to be because of the attempt to use standard style. For example, "small" sports like these and "large" sports like Athletics have much different requirements in order to navigate through the Wikipedia information. The same situation applies to "small" countries (i.e. those that send 1 athlete to a games) and the country pages for the large teams. I am usually a strong advocate for consistency, but I think the over-use of things like navigation templates, medal tables (even if empty), etc. leads to a less-useful Wikipedia. Andrwsc 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These templates seem to take up more space than they are actually worth. Kukini 01:20, 5 April 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.

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:2ft3in

Template:2ft3in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a template which is not needed because 2'3" is always going to be 686mm, and there is no reason to modify it. There are bots which will convert units properly. It might be useful if substed, but doesn't fit in with the exercise in fancy template use which is the raison d'etre of said template and which has the undesirable effect of increasing server load. There may be others too, but they should be zapped before they breed. — Dunc|☺ 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of a set of templates that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains (full list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Article_templates). Their intended use is to standardize the way that railway track gauges are described in railway-related articles. There are a number of reasons for retaining these templates. First they provide an easy shorthand for article editors so they do not have to remember the metric equivalents of a particular gauge. Second for at least some of these gauges, the correct metric equivalent has been disputed in the past and using templates will allow mass substitution of the final equivalents once consensus has been reached (there is an ongoing discussion of this on the Trains project). There is also an unresolved debate on whether gauges should be expressed uniformly as imperial or metric and which should lead. Again, templates allow easy substitution of this if resolution is achieved. It is likely that all these gauge representations will in fact change in the future. Gwernol 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwernol's reasoning. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwernol's reasoning. —MJCdetroit 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 686 mm. Despite the inch origins of the gauge, railway gauges are standardized using millimeters, and this should take precedence. It will also make widest-to-narrowest lists a lot easier to read. ProhibitOnions 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, used for consistency in article output. See the project talk page for discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwernol. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Hawkestone 23:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole bunch of these at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Article_templates. Is there any particular reason why they can't all be "subst"ed? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, please see the discussion above. In particular, because there is still debate about the correct representation of track gauges we don't want to fix their use in articles yet. Best, Gwernol 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but (i) the shorthand argument does not hold much water, since they could just be "subst"ed in, or indeed copied and pasted from somewhere on the project page; and (ii) I couldn't see much discussion about these templates, or the "conversion" or imperial/metric issues, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Trains or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Trains/Article_templates - is it somewhere else? If the intention is to subst them in due course, then fine, but I wonder when due course will come around. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 6 April 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.

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nicaragua infobox

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Nicaragua. — Insta ntnood 21:12, 1 April 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.

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hot chicks

Template:Hot chicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopdic template - of no use in building an encyclopedia. The actual project page has long since gone to BJOADN, but the template itself is still kicking around... CLW 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid and pointless. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic and sexist -- Bovineone 07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencylopedic template. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Wikiproject linked is on BJAODN. 'Nuff said. —Cuivi é nen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 19:21 (UTC)
Delete as amusing but uneccessary, by the way, Chairman I suggest you actually look at the relevant project page. JoshuaZ 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid template Hunter 13:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --IronChris 23:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although an amusing "project." Kukini 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea how this is sexist, but I don't like it anyway. Leaves a juvenile impression of Wikipedia to people --Mboverload 07:17, 5 April 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.

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand infobox

Template:New Zealand infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was an outdated copy of the Template:Infobox Country for single use. It was updated and place inside the NZ article for easier editing. Copy not needed. MJCdetroit 14:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template and its talk page, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to New Zealand. — Insta ntnood 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight 04:08, 1 April 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.

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, Instantnood's suggestions makes little sense Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University2

Keep the template and the talk page, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to template:infobox University. — Insta ntnood 21:14, 1 April 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.

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 Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammar

Template:Grammar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This seems like a really petty thing to have a template for. If a grammatical fix is so disputed, then it can be disputed on the talk page. If the one reverting the fix refuses to discuss it, that user can be warned concerning WP:3RR. Also, it adds the page to a non-existent category, so even if this is not deleted, that much should be fixed. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete I don't see much sense in this one. If there is a grammar problem in an Article it should be easy to fix it. CharonX 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How disruptive would it be to read an article filled with these tags? MiraLuka 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the sometimes petty use that occurs with some of the normal tags ({{fact}} springs to mind), this can't be helpful. Why not just fix the grammar? ProhibitOnions 13:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even used. → J @red 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've used it. I created it. And, it was useful. There was a problem with grammar in a sentence which totally convoluted a definition. Someone kept reverting it. So, instead of reverting again and perpetuating a revert war, I put the tag up and it brought attention to the problem, and the problem was fixed. I don't know why some of you are so quick to to delete a template when it hasn't caused the least bit of problems. If it ever causes problems, THEN consider putting it up for deletion. Give things a chance. RJII 05:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More specific than {{Dubious}}. Septentrionalis 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kukini 01:18, 5 April 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.