Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawnJuliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is unsourced (despite that it looks like it has sourcing, the link doesn't provide the correct data), the template includes two storms from this year for which there is no reliable estimation, and it includes a column (Size HSI) which isn't officially used by any agency. Some other tropical cyclone members should stop by soon and voice their opinion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw, in light of recent development. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, unless reliable sources can be added to back up the data. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that a template for largest hurricanes is overall a good idea (as is one for smallest hurricanes and TCs), but as it stands now the template would need to be more heavily sourced in order to pass. ~AH1(TCU) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can't just go around deleting every article without referencing...if we did, many of our stub and start articles would not be in wikipedia. This is a potentially useful template. After checking the extended best track database, it appears that gale radii were used for storm size (after checking Gilbert,) because the ROCI numbers are much larger than seen in this table. Is the original editor who created the article still in wikipedia? I'd like to know what they used for Carla, since it is before 1988. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, also i notice that it uses the HSI index which is not used by the NHC thus is unoffical Jason Rees (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep if the Hurricane Severity Index data is removed and replaced with ROCI data; failing that, delete. I've looked for a while, and I haven't found anywhere where the HSI's methodology to measure size is described, and requests for this information in the template creator's talk page have not been responded to. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, the table uses gale radii and HSI has been removed. If the preference is for ROCI instead, the changes can be made easy enough. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which database is more comprehensive? Radii of outermost closed isobar or gale radii? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent question. The Atlantic hurricane reanalysis is adding ROCI data for the time of landfall for TCs (1899-1920 done, and there are numbers from NHC from 1988-2008.) I've been working on adding information pre-1988, but the work is slow. However, the two versions of the extended best track have gale and hurricane radii back to 1851 (somehow), but the values were not "best tracked" prior to 2002 or 2003, meaning their quality is in question. From what I understand, ROCI isn't "best tracked" at all. I'd have to look at the documentation as to how they were determined prior to 1988, because the values in the source look surprisingly exact. So far, I'm only adding hurricanes (just hurricanes because that is the name of the template) from 1950 onward into the template until I can check over the documentation. The important thing is that when it comes to TC size, either quantity can be used. It appears at this time that gale radius is better documented than ROCI, based on data entries made in the extended best track. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a consensus for scope/inclusion can't be created, this could be changed into an article, and thusly ranked by more than one criterion. The best of both worlds seems like a good compromise to me. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:00, 1 January 2009 (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.
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 discussion was delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Sowden Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A nav template seems rather unnecessary for only three films, especially when only one of them is bluelinked. PC78 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 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.
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 discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is problematical as it could be rather inflammatory if used during content disputes and would constitute a personal attack to label someone's presumably good faith edits as "hate speech" via this tag, particularly in the context of Eastern Europe topic area and its heightened tensions. Martintg (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categories Category:Articles with possible hate speech and Category:All articles with possible hate speech and the redirect CAT:AAWPHS are apparently created as attachments to this template, and serve no other purposes. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have updated the documentation to clearly state that the template should only be applied when the offensive teksti is based on reliabe sources containing the hatefull material, and that any unsourced or poorly sourced derisory comments should be removed instantly. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:54, 30 December 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.
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 discussion was speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an article, not a template. Article Tirumala Venkateswara Temple already exists with this information. Incorrect usage of Template namespage. Speedy delete suggested. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:33, 29 December 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.
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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greg McLean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only three articles (including the title link). Totally superfluous. —Justin (koavf)TCM08:49, 29 December 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.

Vote- templates

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete all. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vote-Support (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vote-Possible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vote-Oppose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vote-Opinion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vote-Neutral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per deletion of similar templates at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 12#Template:Keep and in May 2007 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 3#Voting templates yet again where consensus has been established that such templates are unnecessary and unwanted on Wikipedia. - ALLST☆R echo 04:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use them to make such processes easier for me, so can it be moved to my userspace?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can put them in your own userspace.. but is it really easier to type out {{User:Ipatrol/Vote-Support}} than it is to type out '''Support'''? 29 characters versus 13 characters. - ALLST☆R echo 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using all 5 templates in their own TfD? That must be some kind of record :P. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per allstar's comment, While it would be easier to type out '''Support''' than {{User:Ipatrol/Vote-Support}}, I use images because 1) I like how it looks, and 2) it makes it more readable at a glance so without the template at all I would have to type [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' so I would like this closed with a move conclusion and it will be moved on the same day.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (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.