Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29

Template:A&BPremier

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 debate was to keep, these are established template guidelines. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with only 3 links working and the subject doesn't really need a navbox, simple links would suffice unless the other articles are going to be created. — RichardΩ6 12 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep The Antigua and Barbuda Premier Division is the top division of a FIFA member state, and I would hope that at some point all clubs have articles (as do the top divisions of several nations smaller than Antigua). Also, why would the articles have links to the other teams other than in a template? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:03, 29 December 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:Estoril Open tournaments

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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one link to an article of dubious notability. — RichardΩ6 12 20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as tennis on Wikipedia is currently undergoing a revamp/construction period. Definately 1, probably 2 of those red links will be gone in a few months and more by the end of the year; and red links actively encourage this. The usage of templates is to align tennis on the English Wikipedia more closely with that of the French, which currently has a superior interface and standard of tennis information. At least review again at a later date. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 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:Www.honduristica.com

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless boilerplate text that will most likely be used for spamming. — RichardΩ6 12 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- non-encyclopaedic. SkierRMH (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant advertising. Happy‑melon 20:08, 4 January 2008 (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:Remote Viewing

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template about an obscure subject, and only slightly over half of the biographies on there are actual separate articles (one of them is currently losing an AfD) and one of the existing ones has serious problems (cleanup, notability, npov) and some of the others deserve similar templates. Temperal^{talk and matrix?} 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All subjects are obscure to those who have no knowledge of them. The South American wombat eats two and a half pounds of kala grass per year. Gesar of Tibet is the savior of asia. Only in the Gospel of Mark are the possessed swine counted. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to spread and secure knowledge. I agree there are problems with the data, but that is what editing is all about, a clarifiction, refining, gathering and sorting of material. That there are two methods of remote viewing has yet to be added to RV. I don't exactly know what this template thing is all about, but if it is about aborting Remote viewing from the Wikipedia, I see it as a desire for ignorance and intolerance, a step backward. If my studies in ancient history are correct, that is just the OPPOSITE of what the scholars who worked at the great library of Alexandria stood for. Supposedly they copied every ancient document they could get their hands on. I admire their wisdom. Kazuba (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, deleting template would not vanquish all articles related to remote viewing from Wikipedia. It would, as the title suggests, delete this template, which is simply a box to put on articles related to remote viewing that's barely helpful because of the sheer obscurity of the subject. I'm quite sure South American wombats and the Epic of Gesar both don't have their own templates. It would help if you would find out what you're arguing against before you argue against it. Read Help:Template before replying. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained that. "I don't exactly know what this template thing is all about, but if it is about aborting Remote viewing from the Wikipedia, etc,etc, etc". It was my understanding I was asked to reply. If I blew it big deal. 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Before arguing about something, it's generally a good idea to find out what you're arguing about. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The subject is not obscure, and is broad enough to warrant a template. During the cold war, both the USSR and the US engaged in significant remote viewing research as part of their espionage and counter espionage programs. Both sides attempted to gain an edge on the other by using so-called psychic spies to view everything from secret documents to military complexes. Remote viewing also has a firm place in popular culture appearing in many conspiracy belief and works of fiction. The Stargate Project is probably the most infamous example of a remote viewing experiment which appears in all three, fact, fiction and conspiracy belief. To suggest that the topic is obscure is to believe that the Cold War was purely a nuclear standoff. - perfectblue (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As, per nomination. Clearly not requiring of a template. Incidently, possible vote stuffing attempts going on [1] Jefffire (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible WP:AGF violation going on. Project Paranormal is the parent project. It's standard procedure to post a notice on the parent project's notice board to keep project members informed about any issues which might affect one or more entries that might be of concern. A single notice on a project board cannot possibly count as vote stuffing. - perfectblue (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — BillC ^talk 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template per nomination. Doczilla (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reality that even Cold War superpowers researched remote viewing, extrasensory perception, and other forms of potential psionics. The subject is serious enough, and well-known enough to those who happen to know it, like everything in existence. As regards to vote stuffing, there are several subjects I would have removed from the very project I am here affiliated with, but others don't agree. In votes, I've only seen WP:PARA members vote based on our beliefs, which is the entire point. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point is that this template is relatively obscure, not obscure in general. We could claim that a subject such as the smells given off by certain species of frog when they feel happy is non-obscure compared to something such as exactly how fast a certain lump of tar drips onto the ground. While remote viewing is a mid-improtance subject, it's not important enough to warrant its' own template. Also, it's useless because it connects few existing articles. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a simple navigation template for a related series of articles. Since the articles exist, there's no reason not to have a template available for convenience of the readers and editors, that's what navboxes are for. Wikipedia is not paper, we have plenty of room for navboxes even if the topics are relatively specialized. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "There's no reason not to"? If we're going to support non-policy guidelines, then see WP:NOHARM. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 21:30, 2 January 2008 (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 Pakistan Archeological Sites

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link to a ~~rather useless page~~ now deleted page. — RichardΩ6 12 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - red-link, no use for it. SkierRMH (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 20:09, 4 January 2008 (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:Vocal classification

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the cleanup of the mess of article and template forks created by Nrswanson (talk · contribs). Xe created this as a POV fork of Template:Vocal range, and then edited all of the articles that transcluded that template to transclude this one instead (example diff). This was wholly unnecessary, because xe clearly knew how to edit the existing template, since xe did, and also discussed the change on that template's talk page. I've restored the original template. This template is an orphan. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

How was this a POV-fork, unless the template name was the subject of the fork? Regardless, delete as entirely redundant duplication of {{vocal range}}. Happy‑melon 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Happy‑melon 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually this template is related to the vocal classification wikipedia article and is different than the other template that involves vocal type article. The vocal type page is currently being considered for deletion and it has no sources. The vocal classification page has much of the same information but is well cited and has more information besides.Nrswanson (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- voice classification is another example of where you created a POV fork of your own and then attempted to have the original deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In nrswanson's defense he created a well cited article versus the other article that has no sources. Also as an opera singer I can tell you that he is correct that voice classification is a broader topic that voice type falls under. I personally feel that this template should be kept and the other deleted. I also feel that the vocal type page should be merged under voice classification but only if that information comes from cited sources. The voice classification page is a better page and nrswanson should be given kudos for putting it together.Voicequeen (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Voicequeen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this arguement is getting caught up with arguements on several other pages. Namely whether to keep or merge the voice type and/or voice classification page. Maybe we should wait to discuss deleting that template until then. I personally would like to see the voice type page merge under voice classification as classification is broader and more encompassing topic as nrswanson says. To fit classification under voice type would just be odd.Ringnpassagio (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry nrswanson but after looking at this more closely I think the old template makes more sense. However, I do think the voice type page should be deleted and that searches for "voice type" should be redirected to voice classification.Ringnpassagio (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New position: Speedy delete {{vocal classification}} as a pure and redudundant duplication of {{vocal range}}, the latter having a more comprehensive and substantial edit history and more incoming links (this per WP:CSD#G6 - housekeeping). However, no objection to moving {{vocal range}} to Template:Vocal classification once that deletion is complete, if consensus determines it to be preferable. TfD is not the place to discuss the merits and demerits of one article (or template) title over another. Full disclosure: I have not read either vocal classification or vocal type, and do not intend to as part of this TfD. What is clear here is that having two utterly identical templates under different names is unacceptable. Delete the new one, work out sensibly where to put the old one, and get back to building the encyclopedia. Happy‑melon 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Happy‑melon. Template appears to have been created to evade WP:CONSENSUS discussion for the existing template, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant fork of template:vocal range. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant/duplication - this has nothing to do with the articles, just duplication in templates. SkierRMH (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (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:Dallas Cowboy Fan

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 debate was userfy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not belong in template space. Could potentially be userfied but that is up to the creator or anyone else who wants it that way. Userboxes using the main template space should be directly related to wikipedia or its content.Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Move it to my UBX archive if you want. ><RichardΩ6 12 11:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom & Richard0612. SkierRMH (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (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:NS locomotive box

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but this seems to be redundant to Infobox Locomotive and its variants.. RichardΩ6 12 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 00:01, 3 January 2008 (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.