Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

Template:User Dalgety Bay

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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G2 - test page. Happy‑melon 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template loop; serves no purpose; likely vandalism. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:09, 15 February 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:Foreign relations of Europe

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 template was kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates {{Europe topic}} without adding any content. Kevlar67 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - after more closely studying the doc page for {{Europe topic}}, it seems that this template was created specifically with the other one as it's basis. Is this normal? Why have two name spaces for the same thing? Kevlar67 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While in general encapsulation is frowned upon, the use of meta-templates is encouraged if it enhances formatting standardisation across article series. The key difference is that encapsulated templates are used one or a handfull of times, while instances of a meta-template are transcluded in the same way in many places. I think it's clear that this template falls into the latter category, as it is used on a large number of articles, as an instance of the extremely clever meta-template {{Europe topic}} (which also encourages standardisation in article titles). Very clever, very useful. Definite keep. Happy‑melon 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Different use for different topics. Serves a purpose so specific that another template would be created rather quickly to replace it if this was deleted. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 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:*Mañana

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template without any links, used by only one file. Moreover, it has a star in the beginning making it hard to handle. Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The star is in the title of the band, so it would be inappropriate to remove it. But the template still provides no navigational or informational information that would not be provided in the article(s). If this band gains a greater presence on Wikipedia, no prejudice against recreation. Happy‑melon 17:43, 15 February 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:British overseas territories

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 template was kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beautiful template, and I'm sure someone put a lot of work into it, but I just don't see how it's useful to have this on so many otherwise unrelated pages. I can't imagine anyone would want to jump from Rupert's Land to Nigeria just because they were both British at one point. Almost the whole world was British at one point or another. Those that are still British or in the commonwealth are well served by Template:Commonwealth of Nations. Sorry. — TheMightyQuill (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand your point, but there are Portugese Empire and French overseas Empire templates ina very similar format. As you say, the difference with the british Empire template is its size, but i don't see why that should be a problem, especially considering it is only one bar which people can expand if they so wish. Lofty (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is helpful, especially if I wanted to jump from Rupert's Land to Nigeria. It is collapsible as well. So it is out of the way when not being used. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, I didn't complain about its size, so the fact that it's collapsible is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions suggests that "it's not doing any harm" isn't a valid reason for keeping. I don't think "the Portuguese and French have one" is a legitimate reason either. The French one lists current overseas territories, which is fine. The Portuguese one should probably be deleted too. I'd be happy to nominate it. mjcdetroit: Yes, it would be helpful if you wanted to jump from Rupert's land to Nigeria, but why would you? By that logic, we should have a template with EVERY article at the bottom of each page, just in case someone doesn't feel like typing. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you start throwing arguments from that perenially disputed essay around, you're going to get them thrown right back at you. In this case a pedantic me would argue that your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES and WP:USELESS. The fact that we have thereby annulled every argument both for and against this template is why eight times out of ten I don't give a monkeys about that collection of stereotypes. It has its uses, but is very often misapplied, misquoted, or (most amusing of all) correctly and appropriately quoted on both sides of the same argument!
- The question is not "why would you [want to navigate from Rupert's land to Nigeria]?" but "why would you?". In this case, it's because they were both at one time or another, part of the British Empire. If "you" are on Wikipedia for the purpose of researching the growth or history of the Empire, there's every possibility that you would want to navigate between two countries in this template. Your suggestion that this argument extends to requiring a full index at the bottom of every article does not hold because there is no legitimate reason why a quick link between cheese and Pierce Brosnan would ever be useful (it's amazing what comes out when you ask your brain for two random topics, isn't it :D!). In this case, however, the common factor is as clear as day, and this template is a beautiful way of providing those links. Happy‑melon 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is that the enormous number of countries (about 115 by my count) that were once in the British Empire makes the connection so vast as to be useless. There is, for instance, no Template:Countries of the World or even Template:Republics of the World while someone might well be interested in researching the growth of nation states, or the history of that form of government. There is a History of the British Empire article that is far more likely to be used that someone trying to learn the history of the British Empire through a collapsible template. If we continue to make these templates to connect countries by every possible connection, we'll have 20 of them at the bottom of every page. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has utility as both a navigational and informational template, and is (as the nominator pointed out) a beautiful piece of code. Happy‑melon 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful and informative. Everything an Encyclopedia is supposed to be. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:48, 16 February 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:Medical Warning

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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#T2 (Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles). Happy‑melon 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator was canvassing this template on a variety of illness related articles. As far as I know, we don't need to add any such liability disclaimers. — OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adds to template clutter with no real benefit to the reader - a page of text cannot be expected to diagnose an illness, so it is entirely unnecessary to tell people this. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, if you are injured by my delete comment.... :) JPG-GR (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The general disclaimer is explicit enough on the fact that Wikipedia does not offer professional advice. It also includes a medical disclaimer that spells this out further. JFW | T@lk 11:17, 15 February 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.