Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8

Template:Infobox Kosovo

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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used following Kosovo's declaration of independence . Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used on any articles, and if it were to be used then we would use a country template instead. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is obsolete now. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No transclusions. Orderinchaos 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:17, 14 April 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:ConfirmationImageOTRS

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 Same result as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 6#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. This is the wrong venue to discuss this issue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not recognized by the Commons when images using it are moved over there. Request bot-replacement of this template with {{PermissionOTRS}}, and deletion of this template to avoid redundancy/confusion.One parameter is slightly different in this template - ConfimationImageOTRS uses the parameter "otrs=" for the ticket ID, whereas PermissionOTRS uses "id=" for that parameter. That would have to be modified by the bot as well.. Kelly ^hi! 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge this request with Template:PermissionOTRS-ID. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:35, 8 April 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:PermissionOTRS-ID

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 Same result as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 6#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. This is the wrong venue to discuss this issue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{PermissionOTRS}} has been modified so that if no ticket number is included, it basically defaults to the message shown here. This template should now be redundant and can be replaced with {{PermissionOTRS}}. I would ordinarily just redirect this template, but Commons doesn't recognize the above template during moves. I'm hoping for a bot replacement of all usages to prevent users that move or copy these images to Commons having to manually fix the template each time. Kelly ^hi! 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Bot replacement and eventual deletion as redundant? Sounds reasonable. (Note: I originally copied the template from Commons) I invited a couple of the other editors, also. We'll want to check the images to ensure that they're commons-compatible first, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this invalid tfd. Why is this happening again?? (see TFD(April 6)#Template:ConfirmationOTRS) Please dont use TFD as a discussion forum for policy related changes. (The TFD page even says that process templates are not to be listed at TFD) Just do it, or discuss on a talk page, or take it to the village pump. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed then because {{PermissionOTRS}} had not yet been modified to replace it. This has now been done. Kelly ^hi! 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was closed because TFD is not an appropriate way to discuss template changes, and it is explicitly against policy to use TFD on any template used in process. If you want to change the template, do it. If you want to discuss it, there is the village pump. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure where the controversy is coming from. I am not suggesting any change in process, only that redundant templates be replaced and deleted. I'm not proposing any further template change, the change has already been made. Kelly ^hi! 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this was an article, I'd say it looks like a merge and quacks like a merge; and we don't use AfDs for article merges. This is process creep. If everyone agrees that the templates do the same thing, just deprecate it as common sense sees fit. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:22, 14 April 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:ft

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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles were the only articles/pages using this template. The template was nothing more then [[30.48 cm|ft]].

I have hence changed all those articles/pages from {{ft}} to [[30.48 cm|ft]]. This template was created in 2004 and does not really serve any useful purpose. _pete 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete:I agree it has no useful purpose.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree delete Kbthompson (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is now orphaned. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We didn't even have to discuss that. You go replace the template with [[Foot(length)|ft]] in the article and then speedy delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:17, 14 April 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:Lists of Slovenians

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 keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template, generated no doubt in a spirit of patriotism, encourages the wasteful creation of long lists of redlinks to non-notable persons. Many of the redlinked articles on the template, furthermore, are null sets ("List of Slovenian astronauts" for example). This nomination is not meant in any way as disrespect to the Slovenian people; but the very existence of the template creates an undue emphasis on Slovenian members of various categories. — Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep::I agree some of them are a little over ambitious as yes the template was translated from slovenian wiki (and now greatly reduced), but the lists serve a great purpose in that they are intended to serve as a platform to generate new articles on and highlight what is missing. If you want to move them to the WikProject Europe/Slovenia project space I have no problems, but there's no reason why we couldn't have developed lists within sensibility for other countries too. As for notability several SLovenian editors have ever stricter rules for notability than I have -please see the List of Slovenian architects which was whittled down to the most notable etc by a SLovenian editor on here who is rather better equipped to make judgements on what is notable than you or I are and doesn't display exaggerated patriotism as is depicted. please assume good faith here that we are trying to build an encyclopedia with notable content which will greatly improve the site eventually. As for myself the creator of this template exerting Slovene patriotism, I am about as un-Slovene as you can get. I am here to build an encyclopedia with EVEN COVERAGE all over ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the problem here is that what constitutes a notable Slovene accordionist from a Slovenian perspective is not going to be the same thing as a notable Slovene accordionist from a planetary perspective. "World-famous all over Poland (or Slovenia, Wisconsin, Madhya Pradesh, Lesotho, Cymru, etc.)" is not the same as "world-famous all over the world"! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete:I have visited the Slovenian wiki and have found that the template there to has many red link,i don't find any point in creating countles articles full of red links.IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Huge lists full of redlinks are not helpful on the Wiki. Lists are to help folks find articles that exist, not to promote names or encourage the creation of articles to fill the list. -- Kesh (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you know all about this don't you Kesh, your're the guy who is filling in these red links right and adding so many articles to wikipedia right? Can we please move these pages to the project space then if this is all the fuss you are going to kick up. If you have any doubts it is precisely such "red linked" lists that have allowed articles like Jože Javoršek to be created. I have been working together with some of Slovene speakers on here to try to build content in missing areas and have them help translate some of the articles. Now if we can get articles like this up and running, then I'm sure you'll agree that wikipedia will become a much greater and resourceful site. So how about moving the pages to the project space. Cool? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Templates like this would be useful for many countries, not just this one. Notability is universal; we don't discriminate between different grades of WP:Reliable sources, after all. And the red links can be removed if such is requested. I acknowledge that I have reservations about some of the links myself, like bassoonists, but those reservations aren't enough to remove the entire thing. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "world famous" since when have many of the articles on American kids who have appeared in one off adverts etc etc been of global significance? Look through thousands of American biographies and you'll find most of them are not well known outside America and many ar elocalised ones at that. Bringing nationally famous Slovenes to wikipedia, I don't see any problem with this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could to bring some of those silly "American kids in adverts" articles to deletion, Blofeld, and been roundly denounced as an evil deletionist for doing so. I don't think I have to tell you, though, that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a valid argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one or two of the lists like bassonists and accordions should be moved to musiciansi agree ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've merged the more obscure lists into a musicians one. Did anybody stop to think that I might have been creating the pages intentionally with red links to serve as a platform to build new content on? For those of you scared of red links I strongly recommend moving the lists to the project space as work pages and keeping the template as a project tool ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no harm in these lists. In fact, I think they encourage users to make red links blue. Hús ö nd 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and See - I've had a row about this already today but I see the Spectre's point. I think the best thing to do in all honesty is wait and see if those red links are filled, if not, then we don't require it, if so, then it proved to be a useful tool to improve the 'pedia. :) Porterjoh (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it - I see categories like Category:American saxophonists absolutely crammed full with articles and many sub categories probably well over 500 articles in total and then somebody tries to add 10 slovenian ones to wiki and they get sniffed at. It is the same for the others. Why shouldn't we have 10 articles on slovenian astronauts if they have done something notable? Any coverage on any of he people is never going to match the quantity of the american category equivalents and anything which begins to try to counteract this huge difference is a step in right direction I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because they're not notable outside of Slovenia doesn't mean that they should be excluded from this project. I'm with Mr. Blofeld - I'd like to see more global coverage on Wikipedia, and I'd help out with some of these if I could read Slovenian. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a big fan of those lists, I know they were first created at sl: wiki and then moved here. In a way, they are ok but on the other hand, they would better serve their purpose as a part of Wikiproject as lists of missing articles. For existing ones, we already have categories. In any case, if the consensus is keep, some trimming is required. For beginning, delete the red links from the template, some can be added later. --Tone 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly tone this is what I am suggesting -move to the project and keep template for projetc use only ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my full support in transfering the list and the template in project space. --Tone 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Category:Lists of Slovenian people by occupation. I have no problem with collecting these lists in one place, but I think it would be better done with a category, not a template (especially one filled with red links). Terraxos (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a page in the Wikipedia namespace see Wikipedia:Lists of Slovenians. Editor of the wiki 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template and move the lists to the project namespace. The lists are too prone to be filled with non-notable people to stay in the main namespace but will serve well as a platform for creation of new articles about the people who deserve them. The template makes navigation among the lists easier than the category so it should stay. The same should be done with lists of people of other nations (like these). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Eleassar here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some categories are indeed too specific and transferring the lists from Slovenian wiki is a bad (a VERY bad) way to go: some of those lists are just preposterous (often having extremely long, with numerous obscure individuals, and lacking the crucial ones). Nevertheless, the lists can be edited (I have helped with some) and when they are functional, the template can be very useful.Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:35, 13 April 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:Uw-trivia

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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user warning template that does not reflect any present policy. "Trivia" may or may not be relevant, and a blanket warning is not appropriate; the relevance of any given addition to an article should be evaluated and/or discussed individually. Father Goose (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: If users add information that runs afoul of actual policies, such as NOR or WP:V, they should be hit with Template:Nor or Template:Verror. Additionally, Uw-trivia doesn't link to WP:NOT#INFO, it links to WP:NOT#TRIVIA, a section which was briefly added to WP:NOT, but strongly contested and subsequently removed. Treating NOT#INFO as a prohibition against trivia is a policy bashing overreach that should not be asserted by a warning template like this, nor even by an individual user. As for WP:TRIVIA, which is a rule (specifically, a guideline), it doesn't prohibit trivia, but recommends against the use of trivia sections, as they tend to be disorganized and lacking in sourcing. (And it doesn't prohibit trivia sections either; it just recommends structuring the material in them in a more organized way.)--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a first-level warning template that helps with content additions from new editors. The WP:TRIVIA guideline says "Trivia sections should be avoided"; some new editors will add information of only marginal relevance to an article (granted, each addition can and should be discussed on the article talk pages), but much of the time, the information added can run afoul of the WP:NOR policy and since new editors will rarely add full citations with their additions, the new information also runs up against the WP:VERIFY policy. The warning template already mentions the policy page WP:NOT#INFO, but could be improved by mentioning these other policies too. Slambo (Speak) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:TRIVIA is not policy, and to give the effective equivalent of a vandalism warning for adding trivial facts amounts to a gross violation of WP:AGF, and as a lot of these facts are likely to be added by newcomers, it may violate WP:NOOB as well. Who is going to define what is trivia, and what is not? The term is open to interpretation, and therefore there is a huge potential for abuse of the template. Trivia is a controversial issue anyway, and a warning should not be used to impress one side of the argument onto users. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#INFO, which is specifically linked in the warning text, is policy. Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this doesn't seem like a particularly WP:BITE-y template to me. We do generally take the approach that trivia is to be avoided; trivia is after all, by definition, minor information not worthy of inclusion. WP:TRIVIA may not be policy, but WP:NOT#INFO is. While I can see how this template could be abused, it can also be helpful to instruct newer editors about our content policies, and therefore should be kept. Terraxos (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, one person's "trivia" is another person's bit of DYK for the Main Page. The guideline Wikipedia:Trivia sections is about trivia sections, not trivia in general, which is quite subjective. And WP:IINFO doesn't mention trivia anyway. I can't see any use for this template except as a template for use by members of WPTCU, but I think that project should be dissolved anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, different editors have different opinions on what is trivia. Per nominator: If users add information that runs afoul of actual policies, such as NOR or WP:V, they should be hit with Template:Nor or Template:Verror. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, far too subjective, and as GW_Simulations says, WP:TRIVIA is not a policy. Many editors begin with trivia and move up to writing articles, so possibly WP:AGF violation too. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:53, 14 April 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:Space Shuttle Missions

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 keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar to the original Template:STS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was deleted just over a year ago. Not sure if it qualifies for G4, so I've brought it here. —-GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fully agreed. There is nothing wrong with current templates, this duplicates their behaviour. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE the original author has cut-and-paste moved the page to Template:All U.S. Space Shuttle Missions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), in an apparent attempt to circumvent the deletion discussion. He blanked {{Space Shuttle Missions}}, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD G7, and I am adding the new template, Template:All U.S. Space Shuttle Missions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), to the TFD. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a moment ago (2008-09-Apr at 20:03pm EST in the U.S.) about the template's nomination for deletion. I moved the article yesterday to eliminate a redirect. This redirect had taken any person who went to "Template:All U.S. Space Shuttle Missions" and sent them to "Template:Space Shuttle Missions". By eliminating the redirect, any person went straight to "Template:All U.S. Space Shuttle Missions".
- With the people now knowing this from the author, I ask GW_Simulations: how does this template duplicate the current templates?--Basketball123456 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it is effectively a repost of previously deleted content, which the community has agreed there is no place for. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not impressed by the previous debate due to a lack of participation and a lack of consensus. I think this TFD needs to rest on its own arguments instead of following up on a previously flawed TFD. The two possible arguments I can see from this and the previous debate are:
- A. this template duplicates information listed in other templates, or
- B. this template is redundant.

I disagree with the validity of argument A because this template is not a strict duplication of material. And I disagree with the validity of argument B because I fail to see how a minimized template at the bottom of any article is a problem. How is this hurting the usefulness of any article from which it is referenced? A person who clicks on something like a Space Shuttle Endeavour template has different intentions that a person who clicks on the next/prev mission links. And this person will have different intentions than a person who clicks on List of space shuttle missions. So there may be redundancy in the presentation (which is hidden by default), but there is not redundancy in the usage.--Burzum (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author, I created the template because some people have different intentions, even thought there is redundancy. I agree with Burzum's comment above. -Basketball123456 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 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.