Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16

[edit]

Template:POV-section-because

[edit]
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) 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-section-because (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and unnecessary. — Jack · talk · 23:54, Sunday, 16 September 2007

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:POV-bit

[edit]
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) 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-bit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated by {{POV}}. — Jack · talk · 23:51, Sunday, 16 September 2007

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:Tofu Infobox

[edit]
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) 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tofu Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was a single use template. Has been substituted into article. It has been blanked since July. — Balloonguy 23:34, 16 September 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:Weasel section

[edit]
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) 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weasel section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

deprecated; {{weasel}} can do this. — 129.215.149.98 23:32, 16 September 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:Republic of Korea armed forces

[edit]
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) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Republic of Korea armed forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Performs the same function as {{South Korean armed forces sidebar}}, and both seem to be used in the same articles anyway. We don't need two templates to do the same job. PC78 23:05, 16 September 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.
[edit]
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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in Alberta Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads in Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads of Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads in Ontario Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads in Nova Scotia Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads in Manitoba Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Roads in BC Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))

These templates only link to other templates. As discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Templates linking to templates, this is a bad thing. They are also unnecessary, even if the links are changed to point to articles; it is rare that one would want to navigate from Alberta Highway 2 to Quebec Route 337, and that can be done, without this template, through the provincial lists and Template:Canadian highways. There is no need to have these links, especially to templates, at the bottom of every road in Canada. — NE2 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the US*Delete. Long overdue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with navigational templates, but with the fact that this ones contain direct links to templates. Templates may be transcluded in other templates, but templates should not be directly linked to from the mainspace (article space). If these templates would contain links to articles, they would be perfectly acceptable, and useful too. --Qyd 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; there's no reason to link to the list of provincial highways in Alberta from every Canadian highway. --NE2 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? All provinces form one nation. Linking Alberta Highways to other Canadian highway is perfectly fine.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I agree with JForget. It is like finding a needle in a haystack (and too troublesome) with a list. There is no problem with these master templates. These templates provide a convenient links to readers from one place to another across Canada. It would be too hard, again, to get from Peel Regional Road 2 to Durham Regional Road 37 (they are both Finch Avenue), but not directly linked together. You have to "pass" through the Finch Avenue article to get to the other). The template could let the reader to choose their region, and then use the templates to navigate. I don't see a problem with templates linking to templates, they are just plain useful, and act like a list. By the way, the "discussion" at the village pump was not much of a discussion as of earlier this week (haven't check it yet). It just contained 2 users' comments. A stronger concensus might be advised.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no discussions seeking a consensus, for the creation of any of the road templates at the centre of this discussion. And saying "The template could let the reader to choose their region, ..." you are assuming that the reader/tourist knows the local area as well as you do to make semi-blind jumps like that. The lead is supposed to be an overview of the entire Article, That is the place to also inform them that it may go by alternative names in other areas. You yourself made the second of these 2 edits to Finch Avenue on February 8, 2007 Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, in essence, what you are talking about is creating a Portal on every page? no...not pretty. Wouldnt it seem simpler to make an ACTUAL Canada Roads Portal and link all Canada Road Article to that ? That discussion is already in progress on Portal talk:U.S. Roads. It would amout to the same number of mouse clicks to get to the article you desire AND it would be encyclopedic. It would have the side effect of moving the US Roads Portal out from the "Portals → Technology → Transport → North American Roads" space and a proper page would have to fill the North American Roads Portal space. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No... this is just one link. Nice, compact, and tidy. And put into the infobox, which eliminates the need for 150 links in templates at the bottom of the page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no to Rschen7754. Why do you like to emphasize on using infoboxes? If so, why not just remove the template namespace and replace them with infobox? We are NOT going to have 150 links at the bottom of the article, we are going to SPLIT the templates once they get huge (over 50 links, maybe?). I must agree to Exit2DOS2000, links to articles on infoboxes are NOT convenient, and has a very ugly layout. You couldn't get from, say, Road #1, to Road # 99, without going through all the articles in between, or find it on a list (like finding a needle in a haystack). This is not what you call nice, compact, and tidy. Templates ARE nice, compact, and tidy, NOT infobox. Portals could be an alternative solution, still, not as good as templates.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I warn you that WP:FA will never accept large templates on an article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder did you get my point on my previous comment? I said I am going to split (or re-size) the templates into smaller templates once they get large (like over 50 links). That way, it won't interfere with WP:FA.
Why yes I did. Specifically, the existence of any of those templates is bad. That is what FA will object to. It's why we dont have a template for the ones in the U.S. --Rschen7754 (T

C) 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, how do you explain {{Interstates}}? It's a template. FA does not object to templates (they do once they get long). Take a look at all FAs. Most of them have a template (if not 2 or 3 or more). For example, Redwood National and State Parks has 2; Hurricane Katrina has 1; Chew Valley has 1; and Dawson Creek, British Columbia has 2. Just to name 4. Some of these articles have templates exceeding 6 lines, and they still passed FA. Templates are the backbone of articles, not useless. If so, why are templates (and the template namespace be created) if FA rejects templates. No point at all.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shouldn't link to templates from templates. Even if it was changed to link to lists my vote wouldn't change, it would be easier to type in where you wanted to go in the search box rather than try to navigate through all of that. Still not sure why the average reader would want to navigate from one random road to another. Any road directly related to the article should be linked directly in that article anyway. --Holderca1 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about roads indirectly related to the article? For example, Albion Road (Toronto) in Simcoe County is named as Simcoe County Road 50. I personally made a link bridging the two articles, and other users are complaining it as "ugly". Only templates could solve the problem.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really understanding the point you are trying to make here. The example you provided are directly related. If I am understanding you correctly, the two roads are the same road, just carry different names in different jurisdictions. Also, looking at your templates, I don't have the slightest clue of how to get from Albion Road (Toronto) to Simcoe County Road 50. If I am understanding what you are saying, it sounds like a succession box would be the way to go, such as the ones used at the bottom of Interstate X in State articles. See the bottom of Interstate 10 in Florida for example. --Holderca1 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the articles you mentioned, are all 3 segments formerly Highway 50? Why not merge all three into Highway 50 (Ontario) and have them redirect to it? All 3 are stubs and it appears the only claim to notability the three have is that they all used to be Highway 50. The route descriptions need to better explained, I had no idea what was going on from the articles, had to go find it on google maps to figure what order they were in. {{infobox road}} would also help out as well, that way you can link the articles together, i.e. the termini in the infobox would link to the next segment of highway. --Holderca1 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good idea to have the "succession box" for these 3 articles, but I am not sure how an Infobox Road would help. Apparently, Infobox Road only works with numbered routes, for example Highway 6 has two links linking to Highways 5 and 7. What about unnumbered routes, as they have it in Toronto? You need a template. Nothing can be done with an infobox. What are you going to do, make a link to a list again, or link them together by an alphabetical order? I don't know why people are focusing in infoboxes too much these days. Finding an article in a list is complicated, as you have other supplement information in a list. It just makes you get confused and lost easily. If this is the case, why don't everyone delete all the templates (and even the templates namespace), and replace it with infoboxes (and an infobox namespace)  Smcafirst | Chat  at 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are valid uses for templates such as {{fact}}? Because infoboxes are templates? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have used {{infobox road}} for unnumbered routes, see Wurzbach Parkway or Hardy Toll Road, most of the parameters are optional. I am still not understanding your point, you are opposed to an infobox that links to a list of articles, but you are for a template that links to another template that lists the articles(the template should be linking to that same list anyways, not another template). Also, no one has proposed deletion of the metro area type templates, so having a template with a link to all of Toronto's highways is perfectly fine in my book. Infobox road would work exactly the same way as the succession box, you list the termini of the road in the infobox. The termini of each of these segements would be the next segment. The infobox also provides additional key information to get a snapshot of road. Infoboxes are basically there for readers that don't want to read an entire article, they check out the infobox for the most important things about the topic and if they want the details, they read the prose. --Holderca1 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting above is to replace infobox with templates, even though infoboxes are templates. Templates are easier to find other links than a list (since a list has other additional, and not needed information).  Smcafirst | Chat  at 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you understand what you are proposing. Take a look at the U.S. road articles and you'll see what we mean. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you mean... You are using templates for navigation in the Interstates articles. You are not using infoboxes to "bridge" the interstate articles. You are using {{Interstates}}  Smcafirst | Chat  at 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you are looking at a set of 50 or so articles that are not representative of the 10,000 or so road articles. Look at an article like Interstate 10 in Arizona or Texas State Highway 151, the infobox browse feature takes you to the next road in the sequence of that state's highways, the important intersecting roads are linked further up in the infobox box, and if you look to the section with the exit list, every intersecting road is listed. The I-10 in AZ article also includes a succession box at the bottom to take you to the Interstate 10 in California and the Interstate 10 in New Mexico articles. {{Interstate}} is only included on the parent interstate articles like Interstate 10 because it is a national network of roads and the browse feature won't work since you have some interstates that are located in only a single state and thus have that state's browse order attached to the infobox. Also, {{interstates}} does not link to every road article in the U.S. --Holderca1 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What additional and not needed information are you referring to?? If the list is done right, it should be well organized to ease finding the road you are looking for, which typically should be in numeric order. --Holderca1 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is, IF the list is set up right. Not many of the lists could actually set up right. If so, every list should be listed as a featured list. Also, some lists could get quite long, such as the Ontario one, and the Quebec one.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is preventing the list from being set up right. Organize by type of roadway, and then by numeric order (or alphabetic for nonnumeric roadways). If a list is too long, split it up among the type of roadway, Texas probably has more numbered highway than most countries, you can see how it is setup here: List of State Highways in Texas. --Holderca1 13:16, 28 September 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:Districts of Konya

[edit]
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) 01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Konya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used anymore, obsoleted by {{Districts of Turkey|provname=Konya|sortkey=...}} — Bolo1729 21:38, 16 September 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:Dakota Central Telecommunications Local Channels in Digital

[edit]
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 WP:CSD G7. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dakota Central Telecommunications Local Channels in Digital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's not appropriate to list TV channels on local cable TV systems, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The same creator has also created a similar template that has also been nominated for deletion for the same reason. milk the cows (Talk) 21:28, 16 September 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:Remove the empty one

[edit]
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 G7; author requests deletion, and nobody else has made significant changes to the template. --ais523 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Remove the empty one (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is not helpful or noteworthy - it is an empty template serving no purpose. . Gscshoyru 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm also going to sart the countdown! Ready!? 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0
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:Delaware-Route-stub

[edit]
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 Move to WP:SFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delaware-Route-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is unnessecary.The template Template:Delaware-road-stub is already widely used on articles on roads in Delaware. Dough4872 17:20, 16 September 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:CBS New Hampshire

[edit]
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 withdrawn. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CBS New Hampshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template actually admits that CBS has no affiliates in New Hampshire; both stations on the template are actually based in Maine and Massachusetts. We've deleted several similar templates for networks serving New Jersey and Delaware for that very reason, so I see no reason why this one should remain either.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Strafidlo 20:18, 16 September 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:Dinote

[edit]
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 move to userspace. — Malcolm (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template not used on the mainspace anywhere only on user:dinote's user page. . ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following are only used on the user's page:

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:Monk and Template:Okie

[edit]
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. WjBscribe 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Okie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was created by a newly registered account, who also created another template Template:Okie, "Approved by the state of Oklahoma Public School System". This template was then placed on the Monk article, which is not really appropriate. I can not see a reason for this template to exist, as it specifically states "article" and thus, the intention seems to be to use this in mainspace. Comments? Comments about the Okie template? . Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added TfD to "Okie", whoever closes this should remember to delete that as well. 68.39.174.238 15:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amended submission to show that the "Okie" template actually states the Public School System of OK is "approving" of the article. Which is obviously untrue, lol. Ariel♥Gold 19:39, 16 September 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:Local Cable Channels on Midcontinent Coomunications System in North Central North Dakota

[edit]
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 deleted author request. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Local Cable Channels on Midcontinent Coomunications System in North Central North Dakota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's not appropriate to list TV channels on local cable TV systems, and Wikipedia is not a directory. — milk the cows (Talk) 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not only is Wikipedia not a directory of tv channels, even if that sort of thing was ok here a template would not be warranted in this particular situation. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:18, 16 September 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:Controversial claim

[edit]
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) 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversial claim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Entirely inappropriate. An issue is either openly disputed, in which case it should be tagged with {{TotallyDisputed-section}}, or it tends to attract new disputes, in which case {{controversial}} (an HTML comment) should be subst'ed in if the point is to recommend visiting the talk page. Circeus 02:02, 16 September 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 consensus-section

[edit]
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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No consensus-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too vague to be acceptable as a cleanup template. Circeus 01:56, 16 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_16&oldid=1146643334"