Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

March 28

Template:Infobox Turkey museum

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! 05:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates {{Infobox Museum}}. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So far as I can see there are two minor differences between the two, namely collection size and network area. I remember that I created the template especially for the collection size feature, network area is not so weighty. I know I have not used the feature so far, but is it possible to add the feature to the template {{Infobox Museum}}? Then there will be no need for the other template. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, once the relevant feature is added Template:Infobox Turkey museum becomes redundant and superfluous. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wisdom89. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, once the feature is added, I also have no objection to its deletion as the creator of the template. --Chapultepec (talk) 04:39, 30 March 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:11th Marines

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! 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like 10th Marines, this template is redundant to Template:1stMarDiv, in disuse, and serves no further value as a navigational aid. — bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's purpose has been superceded by a superior template. Woody (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed Template:1stMarDiv makes this redundant, so delete--Cailil ^talk 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Template is now superseded and superfluous. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:1stMarDiv is a more comprehensive template. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:43, 31 March 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:10th Marines

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! 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to template:2ndMarDiv, and in my opinion, inferior. It also is no longer used. Granted, this template is older, but it no longer serves a purpose. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's purpose has been superceded by a superior template. Woody (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above !vote. This template has clearly been superseded--Cailil ^talk 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Template is now superfluous. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template is redundant and has been replaced by Template:2ndMarDiv. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:46, 31 March 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:Navbox Military

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 per author request Woody (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, this template is redundant to Template:Military navigation, a well constructed and highly used template. The navbox military template has arisen as part of a discussion here in an apparent attempt at avoiding discussion. There are no differences between this template and Military navigation except for the colour. As such it is completely redundant. — Woody (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a (poorly-constructed) clone of {{Navbox}} that does not support the full range of features in that template, and fails to include the military-specific layout elements of {{military navigation}} that were designed specifically to standardize the appearance of related navigation and infobox templates (per WP:MILMOS#Templates). Kirill 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Navbox may be a similar clone to Navbox however it has the same range of features that its sister Navbox {{military navigation}} contains and. {16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}
- Note:Electrobe is the creator of this new template. If it has the same range of features, then why is it needed, it is by your own admission, redundant to Template:Military navigation. Under the "reasons for TFD", point 2 states: The template is redundant to another better-designed template; as a reason for deletion. Woody (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how being the editor actually means my opinion doesnt count. And to answer your question why is it needed? Answer: It has the same range of features (which note you dont denie) and it also looks better, is easier to edit effectively and is adaptable unlike the current box in use on the majority of pages which is administrator edit only. {Electrobe (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

It doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion, it means you have a vested interest in it. The reason for deletion is that it has the same range of features which is why I don't deny it. To answer your other point, it does not look better, (the colours are actually quite unaccessible), is no more difficult or easier to edit than {{Military navigation}}, and any person can suggest changes to protected templates on the talk pages. Something that you seem loathe to do. Woody (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There we go you dont deny that this box is harmless and I think you'll find that the answer to your point about discussion is going to be the same as the one we had in our private (and so not shown on this page) chat earlier. In brief my point is that starting a discussion on a page where if they are anything like Woody won's accept any change the point of telling them something is just going to make it easier for them. And now you see the result I have been made to look like the villian in all of this, Woody is the villian either however Woody is phrasing things in a way which are comletely biased yet don't seem so. {Electrobe (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

The discussion is linked in my opening statement: User talk:Electrobe#Converting navboxes. Your template is redundant and unneccessary. If it was harmless then why do you revert my removal of its implementation? I haven't portrayed you as a villain, merely someone who does not discuss changes. This is not about people, it is about the template. *Flashes cape and evil grin, runs into eery shadows to continue nefarious schemes. Woody (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to Woody's point of course this is about the template thats why I'm here. And to answer your question again I reverted your edit getting reid of the Navbox because I want it to stay! {Electrobe (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

If it was about the template, then why do you bring comic books into it? Woody (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Woody but I dont understand your point about comic books please explain. {Electrobe (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Sorry, that was my rather immature humour pouring forth. It was in relation to you casting aspersions about villains. You know how in comic books there is always a goodie and a villain battling each other in mortal combat, well this is Wikipedia, and there are no goodies and baddies, just editors. Woody (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent)Yeah I no that thats what I said later on if you were reading carefully which you ovbiously werent {Electrobe (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

No you called me a villain, and said I was portraying you in a bad light, which I was not. I am however a Villan. Woody (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not meaning to be rude but could you please leave a reason. {Electrobe (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
  - That is a reason. Woody (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – entities not being multiplied beyond necessity is not only a means of explaining phenomena, but a good dogma to apply to the template namespace. This template seems to be redundant to the main navbox system, and reduces the cohesion of military templates. Gracenotes^T § 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going over to Gracenotes point this navobx isn't some additional clone box as everybody seems to assume but a box designed in a different way to that of the current standard military navbox. {Electrobe (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - an example of a redundant template whose existence only serves to make standardisation more difficult. Benea (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I dont understand how the fact that it is up for deletion means that it should be deleated. {Electrobe (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Would you mind indenting your comments Electrobe? I'm having a lot of difficulty in following your logic anyway, and I'd welcome any help. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. {Electrobe (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Could you rephrase your question Electrobe? Are you referring to me converting the instances of Navbox military? Oh and I have formatted it for ease of reading. Woody (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete &ndas; Seems to be no good reason to have a completely redundant copy around. If it did something unique or otherwise redeeming, I would be the first to vote "keep", but template:military navigation seems to be equal or superior in every manner. Consistancy counts, and all this will do is fracture that. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I surrender. I can see that although many of yours point dont actually make any sense (and i'm not claiming that mine do) there is an overwhelming force against me. If anybody else comes along trying to defend the Navbox I will help but I see little chance of that happening. Do as you will. {Electrobe (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Look, Electrobe, I can see you're getting a bit defensive, so please, take a breather. The final result of this discussion will be decided by an admin who will weigh the merits of the arguments, rather than the quantity of the votes. Your responsibility here is to provide evidence that the templete does not qualify for deletion based on the standards quoted above:

":Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate."

Think a bit like an attourney. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody realise that about an hour ago I said go ahead Delete the page. In sted of making stupid comments just do something. I wasn't being defensive before but i'm beinging to fell like it now.{Electrobe (talk) 18:40, 28 March 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:Next Danish parliamentary election navigation

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 and rename. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is about a past election. I don't see why it should be in articles now. Once we get substantially closer to the next election (which could be as late as November 2011), a new template can be created and added to appropriate articles. For now, however, I think this template should be deleted and references to it removed.. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} ^{• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 09:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Bagande (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but rename. As the election in question isn't "next" anymore, the name is outdated, but the content isn't. Having a navigation box is as relevant for a historical election as it is for a future one. In my humble opinion, the best rationale is that creating a template for each and every past election would put a huge number of templates on the articles about the older political parties, but that problem can also be solved by only using the templates on the articles for party leaders and the like. And it won't be a problem until someone actually creates all these templates for historical elections — something that may very well not be happening any time soon considering the percentage of Danish election articles that are still just stubs. Hemmingsen 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but Move. I agree with Hemmingsen - content is okay but the template needs renaming. Template should be moved and all links to it renamed--Cailil ^talk 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with rename and move per Hemmingsen and Cailil. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename title of template to Danish parliamentary election, 2007, per Hemmingsen. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:49, 31 March 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.