Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 27

< May 26	May 28 >

May 27

Template:Fraternity Leadership Association

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! 08:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable organization, template is not useful for navigation. Should be deleted and all reference to it removed in articles. --Explodicle (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. Navigation boxes should at least provide some useful navigation between article, but I don't think this one does that. The organization isn't particularly notable, so I don't even think using a category would be useful here either. --CapitalR (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, the main article was deleted In July 07 WikiZorro^sign 13:36, 28 May 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:1968 Detroit Tigers roster

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! 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A team sports roster does not really apply to a single season. The roster changes throughout the season and there it doesn't make sense to take a "snapshot" of it during the season or at the end of the season. The information about what players that were on a team is better represented with individual player statistics. Also, this template is incomplete. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: sports roster templates should be saved for especially notable teams or occasions. Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as WP:CRUFT as it exists. Support a proper full team template in Category:World Series championship templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:35, 29 May 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:Lincoln 1970

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! 08:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline template is unneeded when Template:Lincoln vehicles already covers 1970 to present. — Vossanova ^o< 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{tl|Lincoln vehicles]], no need for it. Also slightly confusing. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 27 May 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:Page d

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 Happy‑melon 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is intended for mainspace edits but is only of interest to editors. Linking to explicit disambiguation page redirects is a better solution. At minimum the template should not produce any visible content on the pages that use it, preferably IMO the template should be deleted. — Taemyr (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Modify so it is invisible to readers (ie do not display icon in article). PamD (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for it. bogdan (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can come up with a convincing explanation of what useful function it serves. Ha! (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The function of the template is to make it explicit that links to disambiguation pages is intended to be such, and to make semi-automatic tools such as Wikipedia Cleaner ignore these links. Taemyr (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a big known problem (I haven't looked into it so I don't know) that people are constantly changing links to disambig pages into direct article links with automated tools then it's possible it should stay and be modified to remove the icon as PamD suggests above. It would be better though if people using Wikipedia Cleaner (or any automated tool) need to be aware (and I'm sure they are) that some disambig links need to stay as disambig links rather than be converted to direct article links. Creating a template that alters the links so that Wikipedia Cleaner can't read them to avoid some problem isn't a good idea - to a certain degree it's removing those links (if that's the purpose of the template) from editorial scrutiny by people that use those tools. In other words, if someone is using a semi automated tool to correct links, they should be able to make the judgement decision that some links should be disambig links rather than article links, or they shouldn't be using the tool (or the tool should have documentation that tells them). Essentially this template says "I want this link to point to a disambig page and I want to make that very clear" but just creating a normal link to a disambig page does exactly the same thing. If the template is saying "I want this link to point to a disambig page and I don't want you to change it if you're using an automated tool so I'm hiding it from you" then it's a bad template. Ha! (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a big problem, as almost all links to a dab page should be changed to link an article. And there is better solutions for making the link an explicit dab link, eg. linking by way of an rd. Taemyr (talk) 19:35, 30 May 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:Current mars lander mission

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 - use {{current spaceflight|mission=yes}} instead. Happy‑melon 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too narrow in scope. The one article that has this should just have the {{Current spaceflight}} tag. If there is agreement on this, and this template is deleted, someone should update the Phoenix (spacecraft) article to use the aforementioned template instead. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, too narrow in scope. I can see what the argument is for having it, as it isn't really a "spaceflight" now that it has landed. I think the best course of action would be to delete this, and put an optional parameter into {{current spaceflight}} so it can be modified for such missions. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - True, such a parameter is an option. However, the template already reads "current or recent", which is certainly accurate. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is also a Template:Current rover mission, which is also narrow in scope but accepted. This template simply didn't exist until now because there was no mars lander mission until now (during the history of Wikipedia). But I can imagine to change it from "mars lander" to "Lander (spacecraft)" (and of course move it to "Current lander mission"), for use at all lander missions, may they be at mars, titan or europe. There's a good chance we'll see more lander missions in the future, since there's another in planning for either titan or europe, and sample return missions in planning for mars. ColdCase (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that the second one existed. If it is nominated for deletion I will support it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:Current mars lander mission and Template:Current rover mission per nom and GW, and Rename (and rephrase) Template:Current spaceflight to Template:Current space mission to be all inclusive. Keyed In (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into {{Current spaceflight}}, per Keyed In above. I don't see the need for separate 'current' templates for spaceflights and lander missions - they can all be covered by one template. Terraxos (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do honestly not understand the need for a "current" tag at all. The article lead and infobox clearly explains the timing and circumstances for this (or any other) mission. But if it is really necessary to use such a tag, please delete and merge with {{current spaceflight}}. --Kildor (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have also nominated the other one for deletion: [1]. --Kildor (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modify and Rename to Mars Lander, with an optional parameter to switch between fixed, rover, or dead. Spaceflight, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it. CompuHacker (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of having a current event tag on a dead mars lander? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of "current" template proliferation. Does any article really need to restate in prime territory what is or should be in the lede of the article? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:29, 29 May 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:Tagalog

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 (WP:CSD#G4: recreation of {{Tagalog Wikipedia}} (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 12#Template:Tagalog Wikipedia)). Happy‑melon 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates interwiki sidebar functionality. --- RockMFR 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia (English) is the 7th most visited website in the Philippines. Many topics here have a tagalog version, but many don't see the link in the sidebar. Also, some articles in the Tagalog Wikipedia does not exist here or has only stub counterparts. That's why this template was created. Dar book (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom. Superfluous. Jared Preston (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only used in a few articles (which already have the interwiki added) and has limited scope for use. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:09, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
Moderate delete Redundant to the sidebar, rarely used. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was there some other recent discussion about this or a similar template? I'm certain there was, and that it was specifically about the Tagalog Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter, but I just got a weird deja vu feeling when I first noticed this TfD listing the other day. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 1 June 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:Democrat

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 Speedy keep (not that speedy I know, but the point stands :D): wrong forum, but more importantly, updating all the pages needed to merge these templates would consume more resources than leaving them be. Happy‑melon 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbeckham/Dem (talk · contribs)

StuffOfInterest/Userboxes/User democrat (talk · contribs)

are duplicates of

QzDaddy/dem (talk · contribs)

They should all be merged. 151.197.123.128 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that this is a problem within userspace? Ral315 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per nom - all redundant to one another. Terraxos (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep not an issue for TFD. Should be handled at MFD. Personally I have no problem with keeping them anyway. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Should be listed at MfD rather than here. I also don't see a reason why they, or almost anything in userspace, shouldn't exist. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As long as a bot can update all the user pages. It makes sense to merge these templates. It's true that this isn't the correct forum for this and it's interesting how an IP with less than 50 edits brought it here but I don't see why we can't still discuss a merge regardless.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This should be at MfD. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I completely agree with Dr who. If it can get updated via bot, why not? As for where it's listed, why not just wrap it up here? It is a template, but it's also Miscellany. I don't know. I say let it run it's course. I've been wrong before though. Carter | Talk to me 09:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, not an issue for TfD and also it's userspace so just ask one of them to redirect to the other... there's no real need to go through any deletion process for this. gren グレン 10:20, 2 June 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.