Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23

Template:Canada Liberal leadership 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. Spebi 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly a year since the leadership convention, I don't see how this template is still relevant or usable. Furthermore, it's clogging up the bottom of pages like Bob Rae and Ken Dryden. — Morgan695 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Better off to have a link to the convention itself in the body of the article, or see also list. Any reference to specific leadership rivals can also be mentioned in the text. Flibirigit (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful navigation tool - Jord (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete; a template like this is probably useful leading up to the event and a little after it, but almost a year later it doesn't really serve any purpose. "Current events" stuff needs to be actually current. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 28 November 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:Angels

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.

I'm withdrawing my proposed deletion because I didn't consider the different uses of the different templates. Ksy92003(talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template redundant to {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster}}. — Ksy92003(talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, this template is for player pages. The other is gigantic, and therefore is not.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are plenty of these templates for other teams (I know at least for the Braves, which I made, and the Yankees), all for use on player articles (rather than, say, on team articles). These templates should be able to co-exist because they serve two entirely different purposes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chrisjnelson. While the templates are very similar, they serve different purposes. Template:Angels is the 25-man roster, while Template:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster is the 40-man roster. As noted, the smaller template is added to player pages while the larger one is for the team page. With this being the offseason in baseball, the templates is in a point of flux, but it will settle once the season starts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:04, 23 November 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:Religiousconcepts

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. Spebi 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat of a random mix of things from different religions; not used in any articles; long since superceded by more specific templates on different areas of religion. — BD2412 T 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other more-specific religious templates superseded this. & deprecated SkierRMH (talk) 02:51, 27 November 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:CUS 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Spebi 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not linked from any articles; not sure what it is for, or if it's up to date. — BD2412 T 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a filled out infobox of some type, and therefore not even a template. Not used in any articles. JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & un-useful. SkierRMH (talk) 02:50, 27 November 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:Southampton districts and suburbs

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. Spebi 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not linked to from any article, and has been superseded by Template:Districts of Southampton (although the latter should probably be renamed "Suburbs of Southampton" as "district" has a more formal meaning that doesn't apply to any of the places listed).. Waggers (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomiation --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 23:31, 28 November 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:MBBS Resources Site

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 already speedy deleted — Gavia immer (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; no encyclopedic use; obvious spam/self-promotion. ~Matticus ^U_C 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam (CSD G11) and I have tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 24 November 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:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader

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 to keep. The template has been satisfactorily redesigned, and this design has been implemented. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be deleted for reasons best stated by SMcCandlish:[1] "As a regular and long-time and in-depth editor of the Manual of Style, I can say quite firmly that yes, the MOS's position is that, aside from disambiguation headers and the like, the lead paragraph as described at MOS is expected to be the first thing in an article and that it is stylistically very un-Wikipedia to make weird special exceptions to this for one random topic like US college football's "single games". Wikipedia has a widely and rather (though not 100% perfect) consistently implemented system of right-hand side infoboxes to present summarized tabular information. We do not need a second system to present similar information in a different way, that interferes with the reader accessing the lead paragraph. I stress the word "access" here too, as in "accessability" - inserting artsy tables of sportsgeek details before the main content is a major disservice to users dependent upon screen reader software. If necessary, upgrade the relevant infobox(es) to handle additional details that a consensus of focused editors of American collegiate football articles (i.e. the relevant WikiProject[s]) consider to be crucial, and avoid creating a new entire class of template structures that do things in ways that are not done in any other type of article here, or users will rapidly become confused and even irritated. WP has a very, very consistent user interface for quite solid usability reasons. PS: The template in question, aside from using visual features like cute but grossly pixellated rounded corners that clash strongly with the rest of WP's design aesthetic, is more like a navbox or succession box in nature, and thus belongs at page bottom like all other such templates, to the extent it cannot simply be obviated with an improvement to right-side infoboxes. I don't mean to knock the work that has been done on it to present summarized, useful information, but I think far too much time has been spent on this template to make it "cool" by someone or other's estimation, instead of making it truly useful within the Wikipedia context. The coding work that has been done to make it useful can be ported to infoboxes or navboxes, and the coding work done to make it "pretty" but clashing has been misplaced effort. Anyway, the MOS is pretty clear about this: The lead is the lead; it is not the kinda-lead that can optionally come after a bunch of SCREAMING-HUGE FONT claptrap." — Jreferee t/c 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has also been the subject of a largely negative Request for Comments, at WT:CFB#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: Please note for the record that here the creator of the template not only concedes that this template is not in conformance with MOS, but further indicates that it was designed that way on purpose, and further appears to say that he/she does not believe that the MOS has any systemic-consensus-based authority over such matters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A standard infobox template has been developed to replace this, at User:Nmajdan/Test (as of this writing; that will probably be a redlink some time after this TfD closes.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would say "delete per nom", but I'm effectively the nominator via proxy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then can I say delete per nom? : ) -- Jreferee t/c 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plenty hurtful on the eyes. Since the template seems to be used on dozens of pages, it would be nice if the data from the template calls was somehow harvested and reused, either in an infobox, or in a new, more appropriate template at a more appropriate place on the page. Zocky | picture popups 14:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something else that can serve this function, perhaps a more conventional infobox-style template? It would seem a loss to just get rid of the information in these templates altogether. --W.marsh 15:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redesign/rename the template, per my above comment. I may be wrong but I think the concerns can be addressed in a better way than just deleting it. --W.marsh 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redesign/rename per WM above. As he said, it would be a shame to just lose the template information in all the articles where this is used. A redesign would be helpful, however. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Changing vote below...[reply]

Reply: As the nomination says, the functional aspects of this should simply be put into the relevant infobox, though conceivably some could be moved to a new successionbox- or navbox-style page-bottom template. In absence of anyone actually bothering to do this, that should not hold up deletion if the consensus is not to keep (no one bothering to do it indicates that no one cares about the template and what it is presenting enough; i.e. no consensus that this template has any merit at all). The argument that "information would be lost" is a false premise: Any information in that template should also be in the article in prose form and be sourced; the template should emphatically not be being used to add otherwise missing information to begin with. Even infoboxes are not supposed to do this, as they are at-a-glance summaries, not independent mini-articles! The fact that it is being used on dozens of pages is not particularly significant. While I make no such allegation about this particular template, one bonehead can install and add data to a misguided template in dozens of articles in a single day with no consensus; it has happened before and will happen again. As the deletion nomination itself suggests, there is something worth harvesting here; this does not make it any less a deletion nomination, and !votes to redesign and rename it are perhaps not being responsive to the issues raised in the nomination. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure all of the information in each infobox is always in prose in every article that uses this. At any rate, I know it's frustrating that we have an ugly template and no one feels like fixing it, but the most practical solution here is to fix the template. If we delete it, it will be much more difficult once the template is deleted to revive it as a proper infobox. For one thing there would be no way (other than a database query, as far as I know) to figure out which articles used to use the template, which is impractical. I just don't think we need to rush this... Wikipedia is a work in progress after all. --W.marsh 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some articles where information in the infobox is not presented in the prose. This is simply an article editing error, fixed by adding the information, in prose form, into the main article text. I do this all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding to WM's comments, not only would there be no simple way to determine which articles used to use, but the quarter-by-quarter scores would be lost. Also, how do you suggest creating an infobox that includes the information in the template and passes muster? Maybe the big scores on either side can go, and the coaches and rankings can be put somewhere else, but the quarter-by-quarter box score format is standard throughout U.S. sports media. This means that given the criteria established here, it may actually be impossible to create an infobox that meets standards. I'm not good enough on infoboxes to even try to redesign it... someone here want to take a stab at it? — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then put the information into the article prose. This is not an effective argument for keeping the template, since there is no Wikipedian principle that information put into a template must always and forever remain in that template. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Changed vote now that design is complete) Group29 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous vote: ~~Redesign/rename~~ - I agree, it does not fit the style of other pages. Deletion seems to be harsh medicine. I cannot find any relevant boilerplate warning to place on the template other than what I placed on the article discussion page. That is: see this discussion here. The information contained in the template is mostly NOT within the articles that use it. Quarter by quarter scores, attendance, rankings and so forth. Group29 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have seen the work at User:Nmajdan/Test and I agree with others in this thread that it is the right direction. Group29 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I refuted all the arguments listed in the nomination in a discussion previously held before this TFD at/by WP:CFB which you can read here WT:CFB#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage. I will reiterate that I am the template creator, it has existed for a long time (1 year) with no complaints (that weren't previously solved, see the talk page of the template) and that usage of this type of information could be expanded to all single-game sports related topics so that it isn't just used by a "small niche" on Wikipedia, but the de-factor standard. The WT:CFB discussion also included an alternative infobox that can be considered for discussion as well. Lastly, I think the argument that the WP:MOS is a rigid document is the weakest. We are, after all, a wiki and WP:NOTPAPER applies to both the usage of this template and the WP:MOS guideline -- that's right, WP:MOS is a guideline and WP:CFB adopted another style guideline for their single-game articles as an exception. Usage fully complies with the WP:MOS otherwise. MECU≈talk 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrified reply: The idea that this could expand to all sports' single-game articles is a very strong argument in favor of deletion if you ask me... That only slightly hyperbolic response notwithstanding, the fact that there is already an infobox alternative militates strongly for this template's deletion, since the consensus is hovering between "delete" and "replace" - the replacement is clearly already available! No one has made an argument that MOS is a "rigid document". You have not provided a compelling reason to ignore that guideline, however. And the ArbCom has already effectively ruled against the idea that WikiProjects' "miniguidelines" on matters of narrow interest with small self-selecting "miniconsensuses" can, willy-nilly, trump Wikipedia-wide guidelines established by a system-wide consensus (there's some discussion of this at WT:MOSFLAG, if I recall correctly). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General acceptance and inserting (basically, being used) in GA, FAC and other reviewed articles (as JKBrooks85 points out below) should imply agreement of usage. Used for over a year and inserted into peer-reviewed articles by other users (ie, I didn't run around throwing this into every article, other editors found it useful and put it in) implies agreement by dozens of editors. (It is used in about 100 articles. [2])We only have a handful of dissenters here and the dozens (I'm playing on the safe side with my estimate) of non-verbal editors that have used the template imply consent. What this really boils down to is preference: Some editors want the intro paragraph at the top, and think this is ugly in general. I don't think it's odd that we present information in an Americanized form for American sports. We permit Americanized language for American-focused articles. NCAA is Americanized. Therefore, Americanized formatting for Americanized sports is acceptable. I see that your main interested seem to be pool/snooker/billiards sports. A template like this may not meet those sports needs. But it is common use to present quick critical information quickly in the article in a standard format. Hence an infobox popularity. Yet, why does an infobox have to look like an infobox? Usage in other sports such as Basketball, NFL, soccer (football), hockey, and so forth could be easily done. Lastly, I have provided several policies for keeping (WP:NOTPAPER), you have provided no policy for deletion. MECU≈talk 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with Americanization. This is about MOS, which is not just "some editors" with a "preference", it is a Wikipedia-wide mass consensus on consistent article style. Apples and oranges; no one is suggesting that, say, a British style be used on American sports articles (red apple vs. green apple; MoS is an orange). An infobox has to look like an infobox because otherwise it isn't an infobox, it's some other thing – unrecognized, inconsistent, confusing and jarring. I do not personally see the relevance of WP:NOTPAPER here; this doesn't have anything to do with what Wikipedia does versus what a paper publication does; it is a matter of what a few articles are doing versus what everything else on Wikipedia does. The WP:POLICY cause for deletion is, as I have said, conflict with WP:MOS, (and it also raises WP:ACCESS issues). Stated pretty clearly in the material quoted in the nomination. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:MOS is not policy, WP:ACCESS is part of WP:MOS and also a guideline, so what is the policy you are referring to? I addressed access concerns in the WT:CFB discussion, which I think the lack of pointing to in the nomination is a hindrance to this TFD, as most users are not likely to read my comments that point to that discussion where I refuted all the arguments in the nomination. Lastly, I did not say you were the nomination, I said "the nomination". MECU≈talk 13:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I would ask that you please stop using such terms as "horrified" and so forth in the discussion. They add little content and value but provide a lot of inflammatory value. The nomination includes only personally judgments such as this and little hard-reasoning supported by policy. It seems more like WP:IDON'TLIKE than anything else. MECU≈talk 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it clear I was being tongue-in-cheek, when I labeled it hyperbole myself. Anyway, please note that I am not the nominator; the nominator quoted me from another context (an RfC, in which a more personal tone and point of view is usually to be expected); my follow-on comments here have been less emotive, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant information should be in a more standard, right-hand sidebar infobox, and/or footer. Besides the many excellent points raised above, there seems to be an argument that such an exceptionally stylized template for American football, modeled after a typical American scoreboard, is highly inconsistent with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. BTW, even if deleted, any admin can salvage any useful bits for a normalized version. Individual WikiProjects taking on such radical exceptions to the general MoS is also a slippery slope I don't think we should start down. Ravenna1961 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: Yep. I should have raised those points myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It's not a bad template. It's just the placement that needs work. For what I'm talking about, see 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl (incidentally up for FAC, hint hint :) ). There, the template isn't at the top of the page, and is used, I think, very effectively in the middle of the article as part of the game summary. Perhaps some usage guidelines would be in order, rather than a wholesale deletion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, info should be in infobox. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since this looks like a delete, what do you propose for a replacement? Do the nominators think that "Infobox Super Bowl" (see any article on individual Super Bowls) is a possible starting point, or another template for deletion? — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A replacement template is in the works at User:Nmajdan/Test based on a design by JKBrooks85. This template will also allow us to deprecate {{Infobox CollegeFB Bowl}}.↔NMajdan•talk 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, if the consensus is to delete, I ask that the closing admin contact me so that I can then replace the current template with the new design. I would hate to loss all the information the template currently provides. I have tried to keep all parameter names the same to ease the possible transition. I will be working on the documentation for the template in the coming days as well.↔NMajdan•talk 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MECU. I think it works well, especially in expressing something that looks far more natural when presented in a horizontal bar rather than a vertical one. --Bobak (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that I like what's being done at User:Nmajdan/Test as a replacement. I have long been a fan of this template because it is very effective, but I think it should be abandoned for a similarly effective yet stylistically superior template. What I do not want to see is the template abandoned for stylistic reasons and then have the articles themselves become worse because they lack the summary information this template contained. ZG (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This was the entire point of the TfD. I've added a note about the replacement up at the top, for the benefit of incoming editors just now noticing this TfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen Nmajdan's work, I change my vote to replace with the new infobox once it's ready. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since a replacement is in the works - also as an encyclopedia, the lead should be seen first. --Howard the Duck 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the nominator would like to take a look at {{AFLScorecardGF2006}} --Howard the Duck 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't the nominator say that? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he hasn't seen it yet? --Howard the Duck 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominations for this day are being closed so I feel that given the apparent consensus of delete or replace, it is ok for me to go ahead and replace the current design with the new MOS-approved design.↔NMajdan•talk 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be using the new infobox at the top of all the college football game articles I create, but I still think the current template is useful — just not at the top of an article. JKBrooks85 21:28, 30 November 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.