Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 22

< October 21	October 23 >

October 22

Template:WikiHate

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! 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a clearly violation of WP:CIV. btw it may be based over Wikipedia:WikiHate (antagonist of Wikipedia:Wikilove), but none of these are policies yet. — Andersmusician VOTE 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a violation of WP:CIVIL. JPG-GR 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CIVIL, no real purpose to the encyclopedia. meshach 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiHate, recommended WP:SNOW --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's obviously not serious, I'm not disagreeing but keep that in mind. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above! SkierRMH 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing how this template helps anything. But I can see plenty of reason how this template can be inflammatory when used. So we are better off without it. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 29 October 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:MSJFL

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navbox relating to speedy deleted article - Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League — Mattinbgn\^talk 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not make much sense without the main article. Tankred 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Contains some unbroken links and could be improved by removing broken links (possible expansion?). --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or find another main article. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 23 October 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 Town BG

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! 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}} which utilized an automatic mapping feature to produce cleaner-looking maps than what was available through Infobox Town BG. — MJCdetroit 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obsolete. - Darwinek 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obsolete template, which is not currently in use. Tankred 01:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete due to standardization.SkierRMH 21:35, 26 October 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:Midlands Regional One

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the point of a navigation template when there's nothing to navigate to. — Punkmorten 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and request creation of articles, wikify. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unuseful template. Navigation templates should navigate to related articles. Not simply sit there and "look pretty". --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 29 October 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:Chiconomists

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 Merge, move to userspace. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I reverse my decision. This should not be deleted, and it is an acceptable navigational template. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted because it's small, its information has been added to a larger template Template:Notable Economists, the name is not a word, and it only links to two pages. — Hires an editor 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created it with the intention that it be populated. The number of Chicago economists with Wikipedia articles far exceeds their due weight in Notable Economists, which is an entirely pov template in any case, rendering the overlap of the templates irrelevant. "Small" and "only links two pages" (sic) are identical, trivial objections. "The name is not a word" is not any reason for deletion, at most an argument for moving the template. I might also like to point out that this template is part of a series identifying economists of different schools of thought, Category:Economics navigational boxes, to provide easy navigation between similarly-inclined theorists and their economic school of thought. Can you please specify why precisely, citing policy, this should be deleted? Skomorokh ^incite 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just was struck by the fact that the History of Economic Thought had 8 templates for each school of economic thought, so combining all of them into one template, and deleting the individual ones made sense. In my original argument, I should have said it only links from two pages, or two pages link to it. At this point, because of the new template I created, this one is still too narrow in scope. Certainly there are more people in the Chicago School, but they could just be put into the broader template. Hires an editor 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two difficulties with this line. I think firstly, a template of "notable" economists is doomed to including all of the people listed in List of economists, as all presumably meet WP:N. Introducing any other criteria for notability would necessarily violate WP:NPOV; the only objective measure I can think of is winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, a template already existing at Template:Nobel Prize in Economics. Secondly, you underestimate the serious underpopulation of these templates; if each economist in List of economists were to be included in their appropriate schools of thought template, the templates would be extensive to say the least. Skomorokh ^incite 16:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. These arguments are WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, List of economists and WP:INN --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken - I do not need to make the strong claim that every article listed in List of economists is notable; if even a fraction of them are notable, and they are allocated to their applicable school of thought, these templates would be extensive. Regarding this particular template, if you take the effort to view the article on Chicago school (economics), you will find no less than 19 Chicago School economists listed. As for WP:ALLORNOTHING, I would argue that as I created the articles mentioned using the exact same format, in the exact same process, drawn from exactly parallel sources (Category:X school economists), no objection in WP:ALLORNOTHING is relevant to this case. Skomorokh ^incite 09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late Comment(02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)) relevant to above: We need to address this on a case-by-case basis, as stated in WP:WAX. Therefore, referencing other articles/lists/categories/etc. is virtually useless. A fraction of 19 is not necessarily a huge number to deal with. I have not read the more recent version, I will now and will consider changing my position. For now, I am simply defending my position and my arguements. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of the template for just the Chicago school is to list notable economists from the Chicago school, I think that it's too narrow of a topic. The more comprehensive template is useful in more places, and its more comprehensive nature makes it better because it exposes the reader to more schools of thought than just the Chicago School. Determining notability is a different argument than determining whether this template should exist. As far as the name of the template "Notable Economists", perhaps it should be changed. Perhaps "Notable Economists of Economic Schools of Thought"? An unwieldy title for sure, but still, the criteria for inclusion at this point is simply the names of each economist in each of the other individual templates. Going forward, whatever the notability criteria are determined to be will have to be used. Besides, if there wasn't a point of view of some kind, no template would ever have any kind of list of people or things. They can't all violate WP:NPOV. Hires an editor 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come come, either you are endorsing the conception of notability outlined in detail in WP:N or you have some other formulation in mind. If we are using the Wikipedia criteria for notability, and we agree that there is some non-trivial number of notable Chicago School economists, then this template is a useful navigational aid. Skomorokh ^incite 09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the notability part at all. I just think that the Chicago school template (and the other school templates) isn't (aren't) necessary. Hires an editor 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My argument then is simply optimal size and splitting. See comments below. Skomorokh ^incite 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its ideal form, would a template of Chicago school economists deserve to remain undeleted? My rationale for answering yes would be that it is useful and instructive for the reader of an individual economists article to continue their reading on a related thinker, the existence of whom might escape the reader if not for some navigational aid such as this. I think this is a similar case to Category:Author navigational boxes which link between related works of an author. Counter-arguments? Skomorokh ^incite 09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update the template has now been populated. Please view current state before commenting. Thanks, Skomorokh ^incite 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could still be deleted and subsumed by the larger "Notable Economists" template (with whatever better name we could give it (maybe "Economists from different schools of economic thought?)). The argument that it is useful and instructive to know that there are other economists in the Chicago school applies to the larger group of economists from different schools of thought as well. Ultimately, we should be working on one template with the different schools with various people from each school, rather than have this and 6 other templates for each of the different schools. It also would prevent forking, since there would only be one template. Hires an editor 14:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, there is not much objectionable in this suggestion. Perhaps it would be less useful given the decreased similarities between notable economists generally and economists of particular schools. However, I think that in practice, there are far too many economists (whatever your criteria) to make such a template useful. Templates with hundreds of links should, in my opinion, be split. For example, on pages where you would want your Notable Economist template, we could simply use Template:History of economic thought, and on these pages i.e. "X school of economics", place the relevant "X school economists" template.

My error was in originally not filling these individual templates with the number of economists they deserved. Mea culpa. But don't punish the template for my editorial imperfections. Skomorokh ^incite 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. After viewing the updated one, I agree with Hires an editor. A single template could have a parameter to control which group of economists to display, defaulting to all --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 25 October 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:Warhawk Ranks

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! 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. — Pagra shtak 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only transcluded once, by Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) - this shouldn't be using a nav template anyway, as the links are all irrelevant. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why delete it? It is part of the article, I am finding someone to help put in hide mode as default so it won't take room, and only people who want to see it can.--Playstationdude 22:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because it can be readily converted to a table in the article and is only used once, and therefore a template is unnecessary. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: and per WP:HARMLESS --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is 1 article, easily converted into table. SkierRMH 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Can just be subst'd into the one article using it (and converted into a table), and then deleted and forgotten about. GlassCobra 21:08, 28 October 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:Mercantilism

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, valid navbox. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted because it's small, its information has been added to a larger template Template:Notable Economists, the name is incorrect for what it is, and it only links to two pages. — Hires an editor 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete and orphaned. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - orphaning and obsolescence are the results of misguided actions by nominator. Template:Notable Economists violates WP:NPOV in asserting some economists to be "notable". Using WP:N as the criterion for inclusion in the template would inarguably result in hundreds of entries in the template, rendering it cumbersome and useless. Readers are much more likely to want to navigate from one mercantilist economist to another than, say, a mercantilist economist to a Chicago school economist (the two share very little in common). Templates should remain particular to the individual schools and expanded to include all relevant members. Skomorokh ^incite 14:42, 25 October 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:Springfield MI Radio

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template named with wrong postal code (Missouri's postal code is MO not MI), all linked pages have been corrected but this template should be removed to prevent confusion. Rtphokie 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently redirect/per nom due to misleading title. SkierRMH 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Housekeeping. Jll 10:59, 28 October 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.

Football squad templates

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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:FOOTY guidelines that only FIFA World Cup templates should be used. - Darwinek 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - PeeJay 12:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, project guidelines, and well-established prior concensus. Neier 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, speedy the Japan 2007 ones as test pages (they are most likely fictitious, and created by a User:Template tester.) Punkmorten 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Templates#Templates_used. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important to have this information accessibly on articles PalX 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways to include information in an article besides the use of a template. Linking to the tournament's squad list (created, if necessary) is but one solution that has been effective for the Olympics, Confederations Cup, etc. Neier 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FOOTY guidelines that only FIFA World Cup templates should be used. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:08, 29 October 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 City Estonia

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! 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized the few pages using it to {{Infobox Settlement}}. — MJCdetroit 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consistency is a good thing. - Darwinek 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obsolete template, currently not in use. Tankred 01:58, 23 October 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:Mario Kart series

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. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete this; Template:Mario sports games kind of overruns it. Toomai Glittershine 01:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, {{Mario sports games}} simply has way too many unrelated games in it to be plastered on every Mario Kart game article. See also Template talk:Mario sports games. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Locke Cole, the sports game template is just too cluttered and far too huge. I think it's better kept separate. hbdragon88 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps tidy up articles on Mario Kart video games. Martin B 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep {{Mario sports games}} is useful for the entire group of games and games that ~~aren't in series~~ are the only games for their particular sport, {{Mario Kart series}} is for this particular ~~series~~ sport. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (edit 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Well...in that case, wouldn't there be templates for the Golf and Tennis series? They each have five games. Although admittedly Kart has the most. Toomai Glittershine 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There were. See Mario Golf series and Mario Tennis series, both redirected on 11 June 2007 w/o me noticing (b/c I stopped watching them a long time ago). hbdragon88 05:48, 27 October 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.