Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 2

< April 1	April 3 >

April 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harmony Airways

Looks like an attempt to implement the contents of Template:Infobox Airline for Harmony Airways. Not used on the airline's article. — Hawaiian717 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and would be redundant if it worked. –Pomte 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte. Bl a st 05.04.07 0051 (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:Three other uses

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, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very redundant: "three other uses" means high time for the disambiguation page instead of littering the valuable space on top of the article. — `'mikka 21:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through whatlinkshere, these articles aren't in terrible need of so many dablinks. If there is a major alternate use, link that and the new dab page with {{two other uses}}. –Pomte 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - those templates are a huge mess anyway, and this isn't helping. Gracenotes^T § 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, since it's not this template's fault that the system is so complicated. Gracenotes ^T § 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may still be used, as i have done with Harry Potter. Simply south 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you think of merging the otheruses templates into, say, one master template that uses ParserFunctions? Gracenotes ^T § 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Potter doesn't need the last link to Harry Potter (disambiguation). The only disambiguation targets missing are the 7 titles, which are linked neatly at the bottom of Harry Potter. –Pomte 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The disambiguation page has only just been started. Simply south 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are there going to be any articles not covered by {{Harrypotter}}? –Pomte 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey, in case anyone is interested, User:Gracenotes/Sandbox 3 now covers {{otheruses}}, {{otheruses1}}, {{this}}, {{otheruses3}}, {{otheruses4}} partially, and the 4-parameter function of {{two other uses}}. I should fully cover {{two other uses}}, {{otheruses4}}, and {{three other uses}} soon. Gracenotes ^T § 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK but not all disambiguation pages end in "(disambiguation)". Simply south 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, but did you check out the source code? It only displays that if there are no other parameters. Gracenotes ^T § 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have replied on your talk page. Simply south 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically, the usefulness of these templates is when other meanings may be similar enough to create confusion, or when one or two other uses stand out as being particularly common. The article Quebec is a good example of why this needs to be kept. Sometimes other uses can be similar enough to the use in the article that people may not realize (at first or at all) that the current article does not cover what they're looking for. In the example Quebec, there is one extremely common geographic use besides the province. A person might well read "in Quebec" somewhere without realizing that "Quebec" can also mean Quebec City, if they are not told that there are other geographic uses in the same area of the world. As for Province of Quebec (1763-1791), again, a person might not realize that they're in the wrong place when they come to Quebec, even if they're told that there's a disambiguation page. At that time in history, the province contained not only some areas in present-day Quebec, but also what is now Ohio, Missouri,, etc., and that is only marginally covered in the article Quebec. If they don't know that, then thinking that they had found the article about the province of Quebec, they might not bother looking any further. Joeldl 09:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Quebec (1763-1791) was a rename of Canada, New France. Should Canada have a dablink to Canada, New France as well? I don't think historic entities should be disambiguated at the top, only completely distinct places of the same name in other continents/regions. If readers come here due to a reference to Quebec over a 30-year period in the 18th century, they probably read it in a historic article and would look for it in the history section. Still, this is not the wrong place; Province of Quebec (1763-1791) and Quebec are part of the same topic as the latter includes the former, especially considering the subarticle History of Quebec. –Pomte 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also would have been more appropriate than see for the historical entity. The article Quebec does have some coverage of that period, but does not cover any areas outside Quebec's current boundaries which were added by the Quebec Act in 1774. The article Quebec covers facts about the historical entity, but only where they are relevant to present-day Quebec. A person interested solely in the history of Ohio or Illinois might well be interested in Province of Quebec (1763-1791) in a completely different perspective, and they need to be told that that perspective is not covered in the article Quebec. What we are dealing with here is a subject that coincides partially with that of Quebec, but not completely. You say that disambiguation is only for totally different topics. Editors should have the flexibility to tell readers what the division is between articles, and this division will sometimes involve subjects that are closely related but not identical. Also, Quebec City is a completely different meaning of Quebec, though Quebec City is not in a different region. Joeldl 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) To respond to the suggestion about Canada as a part of New France, the history of that region is entirely subsumed by the history of what is now Canada. The same is not true of Quebec from 1774 to the American War of Independence. Joeldl 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that the same situation does not apply for other terms that refer to older parts of Quebec, such as New France, Lower Canada, and Canada East. Not only because their names do not include the word 'Quebec', but I think also because regions are expected to shift borders and change names. Province of Quebec is only one of them, and yet here it looks like its part of the history is made more important than all the other parts. To me, it is sort of like linking History of X at the top of article X, which also coincide partially. I admit this analogy is not accurate, and I'm unlikely to pursue the argument with much force. If this is the right idea, Northwest Territories should have a dablink to North-Western Territory.

The Province of Quebec has either been neglected, or is not very important to note: None of the articles Ohio, Illinois, History of Ohio, or History of Illinois mention the name Quebec at all, only that they were occupied by the French. If a person is interested in those histories, how can they tell to search for Quebec? (I don't know it well enough to insert content.) As another example, Oklahoma Territory has no mention of Oklahoma even though the Territory consists of a subsection of the present state (History of Oklahoma makes only a brief mention). If you'd like, let's take this discussion elsewhere, say Talk:Quebec. –Pomte 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If an article has this template on it, then there are at least four meanings for the term, and users should just be directed to a disambig page. Tompw (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arises when the other meanings are closely related to the one in the article, so the reader may think they're already on the right page and not bother looking at the disambiguation page. Joeldl 11:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. Given the large number (looks like about two dozen) of pages which refer to this template, there is signficant work in cleaning up each one, and deleting the template (or even just proposing it, which clutters up those pages) is an awkward way to go about this. That Quebec needs this template seems relatively convincing to me, although most of the other uses seem to be better solved other ways. Deleting the template may also encourage authors to just do without templates, whereas keeping the template with documentation saying "here's why this is probably a bad idea" provides a way to promote best practices. Kingdon 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because of the nominated reason of redundancy but because it over-complexifies what is essentially indented and italicized text Cburnett 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's indented and italicized now, but what if we want to change that in the future? What if someone's printing a bound edition of Wikipedia and wants to automatically insert page numbers? What if a blind person wants their text-to-speech engine to read it differently? Maybe those aren't great examples, but it's always a good idea to separate semantic content ("disambiguation links") from concrete formatting ("indented and italicized"). —Keenan Pepper 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the resulting link is too long and would be better listed on a disambiguation page. AEMoreira042281 16:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the objections are style-related. Style questions are up to each editor's discretion. Nardman1 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that this is incorrect. We have style guidelines that are decided by consensus, and this can be resolved the same way. Superm401 - Talk 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the resulting three links are too long and would be better covered by a link to a disambiguation page. C0N6R355 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This template is cretainly useful in articles such as the Troll article. Many words have other two other meaning similar but not the same to each other and the timplate in question is very helpful with those. Af648 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than two alternate meanings means it should have a dabpage. We have enough dablink excesses as it is. The idea that reducing two dozen instances of usage would be overly taxing on editors seems mildly ridiculous. If anything, it would be just as easy to (God forbid) simply use plain text. Peter ^Isotalo 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Links to three other pages at the top of an article is clutter. At this point it is best to just link to the disambiguation page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Link to disambig is by far enough. --Tone 21:09, 11 April 2007 (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:No-swear-words

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a completely unnecessary userbox, as only one editor links to it. AniMate 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've taken the liberty of creating it in his userspace so he can continue to have it on his page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already userfied. Gracenotes ^T § 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Gracenotes Bl a st 05.04.07 0051 (UTC)
Delete and I'm putting the user's version up for deletion as well. He's indef blocked. Nardman1 00:57, 7 April 2007 (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:Universities in Scotland

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Scottish Universities}}. Kanaye 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfD including both templates: February 17, 2007 (Universities in the United Kingdom navigational templates) (no consensus)

Delete unused/redundant. –Pomte 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather redundant Gracenotes ^T § 20:18, 3 April 2007 (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:Tagwar

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unecessarily antangonistic template given its wording. Talk pages are to be used instead of such tags. The only qualification for keeping this would be for usage on Wikipedia:Humor pages. I would go so far as to say that this tag should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#T1. (→Netscott) 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep per WP:SARC. >Radiant< 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure: there is presently a tag war at WP:PNSD involving, among several others, Netscott, 6SJ7 and myself. The page has now been protected. This seems to be a WP:POINT-nomination based on that. >Radiant< 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This tag was used by User:Radiant! (who in the interest of full disclosure - created it) inappropriately and tended to have an inflammatory effect. There's no POINT here.. the tag is divisive and inflammatory and should be deleted accordingly. (→Netscott) 16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The tag was added appropriately since, yes, there was a tag war ongoing. I am not aware of it having inflamed anybody. In the past, people have used {{in space}} for the same effect. >Radiant< 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SARC. 6SJ7 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Only worsens the problem. –Pomte 17:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:BJAODN. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete, with GFDL compliance of course! Gracenotes ^T § 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was kind of funny though. Hope nobody seriously thought this would fly. Quadzilla99 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Meta. This is as good as the m:The Wrong Version tag, made me laugh anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Delete. —Cryptic 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though agree that it qualifies for BJAODN. Where was this during the WP:DENY discussions? : ) - jc37 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. I wouldn't mind a transwiki to Meta either. This isn't appropriate for template-space, but is somewhat funny. --ais523 14:50, 8 April 2007 (U T C)

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:ttnw

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons:

Template is not used. (What links here)
Template is marked by author: Don't use this!.

Author has been notified. — Kevinkor2 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned and useless. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tried this before, but there's no way to make it work. Gracenotes ^T § 20:15, 3 April 2007 (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 North East England place

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 Delete, CSD G6. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned infobox, superceded by the UK place infobox. Falls into one of several former infoboxes set to be deleted once conversion was complete (see here) — Jhamez84 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may fall under [WP:CSD#G6|G6]]. Gracenotes ^T § 14:15, 2 April 2007 (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.