Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9

User:JB82/Userboxes/DPShow

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! 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JB82/Userboxes/DPShow

The show has long since been taken off the air. Please delete without fail. — J B 82^c 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not in template space, you may request deletion of one of your userpage using {{db-owner}} on it. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 10 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:Girlicious

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! 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template has no relevant purpose, for the article or for wikipedia, it is just a navigation footer that a fancruft editor created, for a non-relevant group, without relevant impact on media, even the article is substantially small for a sort of template. — Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus delete. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - facilitates navigation between at least 11 directly related articles. No less useful than {{Reik}} or {{Alphabeat}} or numerous others. DH85868993 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a helpful aid to navigation between related articles.--Beloved Freak 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'er. I'm not one for the topic, but I'm sure it's helpful to Girlicious fans and infoseekers. BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator said it himself— it's a navigation footer. It's irrelevant whether he personally feels that the group is irrelevant. As more information about the group is made public, the meatier the article will get. Orane (talk) 05:33, 15 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:Hebrew people

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 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most poorly designed templates I've ever encountered. It takes 7 existing templates (all with varying color pallets and design), and transcludes them into this one monstrous template, and then hides them behind hide tags. Hit show on all seven tabs to see what I'm talking about. This is unreasonably unworkable. The seven templates are fine on there own, but I see no reason whatsoever to combine them all into this mess. — Andrew c ^[talk] 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not pretty, seems not to help the vast majority of pages it is used in, and messes up the layout where it is used because the various templates inside of it are different widths (some are meant for the bottom of pages, some for the top). It is also being used on top of much more useful templates, pushing them unnecessarily down into the body of pages. NJGW (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its not "pretty" if you open 'em all at once, but normally you would only use one at a time. This Template is the best option since making one from scrach would be redundant with all existing templates. Maybe it cause issues in another broswer, but it seems to work very well to me. Just do not open unneeded tabs.--Carlaude 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that making one from scratch would be redundant with the existing templates. But then again, I don't see how what you have done is any less redundant. If you want to create one giant template with over 200 links to replace 7 smaller templates, that's one thing, but I don't see how such a massive template could be helpful. What contexts do you foresee using this giant template in where the smaller templates couldn't work by themselves? I think categorization serves a better purpose when trying to group all the notable Hebrews then trying to create a massive template. My preference would be just to delete this template and be done with it. The other option I see working is deleting the other 7, and creating one well designed, formatted from scratch template to replace the 7. But of course that isn't my preferred outcome. I can't see why we would need the smaller templates and the larger, all inclusive template (which would be another option), but perhaps you can explain how you intend to choose where to use small and where to use large?-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the template being helpful or not-- that should be up to the editors of the individual pages which it does or could appear on. Any page can delete it from that page... but give it time... the template just began an hour ago.
Delete. I don't understand the need to show all the seven sub-templates at the same location in any article. It will be impossible to make this template a proper layout. --Kildor (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not usable in article space because of the bad design. A properly formatted version would be acceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat and Keep, possibility of being very helpful with modification Faith (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavia immer. I think that very large templates should be designed as horizontal templates and placed at the bottom of the article.Eklipse (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carlaude's templates enrich one's understanding of the Bible. This one is no exception and let's keep it. --71.119.158.45 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) — 71.119.158.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete/Reformat I'm with Gavia immer. The template s useful, but it's format is way off. The horizontal subsections are unneccesarily long, and the second subheading is formatted completely different from all the others. The inner subheadings need to be fixed, or the template deleted, but it can't stay the way it is. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. In the majority of cases where this template is used or could be used, there is simply no need to link to so many articles. A simpler {{see also}} link to a general article (such as Sons of Noah or Hebrew Bible) would be easier and more visually appealing in many cases. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly argument. A {{see also}} could be more visually appealing to some folks (how I do not know) but not me. It would not be easier. Using a {{see also}} would require a jump to another and more often yet a second article just to hunt and find the same link that a template could show without even leaving the page. --Carlaude (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I readily admit that my statement about the visual appeal of a "see also" link is purely a personal opinion, but the portion of my argument that is most relevant to deletion is that "[i]n the majority of cases where this template is used or could be used, there is simply no need to link to so many articles". That, combined with the formatting inconsistencies of this template (at any resolution, opening up the full template requires the reader to scroll down substantially), suggests to me that jumping to another page would actually be easier for the purposes of navigation than searching through the template. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 19 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:WikimediaMention

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is transcluded in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure that it's necessary, especially in lights of WP:NDIA. Thus, I bring this here for a discussion.. Cenarium (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short I was looking at the practice of Wikinews which puts a disclaimer on every page they write which concerns a WMF property, much like most magazines include a line explicitly stating that Company Y also owns this magazine. To me there's a major difference between a profanity disclaimer and a COI disclaimer. By stating in very bold terms up front that we might be in a COI to me it's increasing our transparency and openness. -- Tawker (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template was copied from Wikinews, where its use makes sense; like those from other news sources, articles there may contain original research (which is why it's customary in the news industry to note any affiliation between the author/publisher and the article's subject).
The template is misplaced here, as our articles should not contain original research. All information should be attributable to reliable external sources, so our articles shouldn't contain any claims about our organization that originated here and haven't been corroborated elsewhere. Therefore, this notice isn't needed. —David Levy 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - makes sense on Wikinews, but not here. There is no need for it given the general disclaimer per WP:NDIA.RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:35, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, NDIA is a guideline not a policy, and I do think that a disclaimer on the articles closely related to WMF is a good idea. However, I'd put that kind of disclaimer at the bottom of the article, not the very top. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self reference. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes pages look ugly! -dannerz (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Lu na ke et 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete diego_pmc (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Tawker and David both make good points but there's another issue- Wikinews is dedicated to reporting not to encyclopedia writing. The standard of ethics for reporting states that one always adds such a disclaimer when relevant and do so prominently. In contrast for encyclopedias one generally does not. I'm not sure this distinction makes sense but it reflects common practice. I can think of at least one argument that supports the distinction: News sources are more likely to be glanced at quickly whereas people looking at an encyclopedia article are more likely to stick around and look at something in detail. Thus, a prominent disclaimer is necessary on news reporting while it isn't as necessary on an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 12 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:Future single

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 Happy‑melon 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a single release is defunct: releases occur via the internet of videos, especially via Myspace.com or Youtube.com, Public relations promotions, plus pirated albums, official releases of soundtracks to movies, MP3 releases of tracks to albums as teasers to purchase the entire album.
Delete-- The template is public relations fluff. All information, in an article about a song or instumental release of a recording should state the contingent and future nature of the information, with a citation to a reliable source. The template is superfluous and fails to add useful information to an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addedum by Nominator: Duplicates the fuctionality of {{future}}, as described on the documentation page for {{future}}:

 To describe a future event without a specific template use: {{future|type= Event}}

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have an opinion on the template itself but I wanted to say that the concept of a single is NOT defunct nor will it ever be. iTunes even calls their releases singles still. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced articles and articles with speculative contents should be marked with {{unreferenced}} or {{crystal}} instead. This templatate is unencyclopedic and is merely a superfluous disclaimer. --Kildor (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template address about an upcoming single, from many reliable sources (you cannot generalize, because I add sources to articles with such a scope), this can indicate that the article will be modified constantly, and will not prevent only editors, but admins to understand its behavior. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every article is subject to modification, the message one may be modified is superfluous. It's been my experience in reviewing the articles that had this template tag, that typically most articles are hardly ever edited. Typically someone writes an article about the release of a single song recording, often without references, and then it sits fairly quietly for months, with a lot less than one edit a day. And for many articles, months after the release, the tag is still on the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eduemoni, the idea that the concept of a single release is defunct seems very strange and not reallly a reason to delete. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, that is perhaps true. But that was hardly the only reason given for deletion. What is the reason to keep the template? In what way would the template improve the article Give It 2 Me (Madonna song) for example? That single is perhaps an example of the difficulty in determining if a single is "future" or not. It is part of an album that is already released. And the song is spread on the Internet. But it has not yet been "officially" released. So is it a future single or not? The template would not help in this case. The article text is capable of informing the reader about the release status. And the disclaimer about that the article is subject to change is simply true for all articles on Wikipedia. --Kildor (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Remember that record labels still work individual songs to radio stations for airplay... these are your "singles" nowadays. It's not the traditional definition of the word, but it's certainly the contemporary. Because of this "new definition," the template is still valid. Once the single is announced - and sometimes they're announced a couple months or more in advance - an article could be created and this template used. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 02:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this view fails to respond to the points that the template has the same fuctionality as {{future}}, and that the template also fails to add anything of substance to the article it may appear on. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I certainly did consider that argument. I don't believe it to be a valid argument because my interpretation of the {{future}} is that it is proper for use on articles such as 2012 Summer Olympics or a similiar "event." To me, the release of a single or an album is not an "event." Therefore, the template in question here is still relevant and maintains its independence. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. If this template is put up for deletion, why not {{Future film}} or {{Future album}}? --Hera1187 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 15 similar future and current templates have been nominated for deletion the last couple of weeks, and for all of them there have been consensus to delete. ([1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). So far, I have not seen any arguments for why this tag is needed at all. What in its message is not already known or already told by the lead of the article, and that is not covered by the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia? If you read a newspaper article or a magazine about an upcoming single relase - do you ever find a big eye-catching disclaimer tag at the top informing the reader that the content of the article may become inaccurate as the single release approaches and more information becomes available? The lead of any article about a future event clearly informs the reader that the subject is about the future (i.e. the article Moving_Mountains (Usher song) clearly states that "Moving Mountains" will be released to radio in the U.S. on June 24, 2008). The template is simply superfluous and should be deleted. --Kildor (talk) 08:33, 17 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.