Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 14

[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Abune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. Only 4 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:32, 14 August 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 speedy delete per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Person}}. Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:29, 14 August 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.

Template:Infobox Archbishop of XX

[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 subst and delete/redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archbishop of York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Archbishop}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, they aren't redundant, as they also include sainthood information, allowing the combination of both archbishop and sainthood information into one infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then those parameters need to be merged onto {{Infobox Archbishop}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good idea, but it should be done first before deleting these templates. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 16 August 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 as now unused and redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Patriarch of Constantinople (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Patriarch}}. Only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 14 August 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.

Template:Infobox Bishop of XXX

[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 as they are now unused and redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bishop of York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Bishop of London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Marthoma Bishop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Bishop}}. Only 6 transclusions for York; one of London; 21 for Marthoma. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:38, 14 August 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 speedy delete as unused and redundant Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Model/Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Infobox Model}} Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 14 August 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Prix motocross racer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:45, 14 August 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 as redundant to {{Infobox Martial artist}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant. Only two instances. . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 14 August 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby league coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 14 August 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ymovies title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Several dozen film articles use this template to link to the film's page at the Yahoo! website, but the pages are largely redundant to the Internet Movie Database's listing of basic information and the more comprehensive lists of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The "External links" sections should not be link farms of web pages that are more added because of the website's name rather than its direct usefulness to readers as a supplementary source. —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:19, 14 August 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, with no prejudice toward recreation. JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too early for this template, episodes haven't aired, information on them is unavailable, and articles are not created yet (nor should they be). Ejfetters (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As long as the template isn't being used on articles, I don't see any particular harm in having it exist a few weeks ahead of when the season starts, particularly since it is extremely likely that the season will air as scheduled and that articles will be created for the episodes. But it could also be easily recreated if it is deleted, and no great harm would ensue, so I'm neutral. Perhaps the easiest thing would be for the creator of the template, SnakeChess5, to copy it to userspace and allow speedy deletion, with the understanding that it can be copied back at an appropriate time. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be recreated at a later time, but it doesn't seem to conform to WP:CRYSTAL for the time being. So yeah delete, and of course recreate at a later time. Ejfetters (talk) 22:50, 14 August 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-rorschachblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominating:

Far too narrow user warning/block templates, designed for a single article. A reason like this can be easily provided with more general templates using the numbered parameters. –xenotalk 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a warning about removing verified content against consensus. There are a number of psychological pages in which content suppression is being attempted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-notcensored1 / Template:Uw-delete1 ? If these aren't specific enough (note the ability to add Additional text if you wish to add a note about consensus), I'd recommend proposing a new template at WT:UW. –xenotalk 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a very isolated issue to create a set of templates over. This issue can be enforced using regular policy based templates. Chillum 22:11, 14 August 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.

Vogue covers

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960-1969VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1970-1979VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1980-1989VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1990-1999VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000-2009VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vogue template footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A bunch of (partially empty) templates that lists "Major Vogue covers", and with that it means all Vogue covers of the French, Italian, American and British Vogue editions in a given decade. Because it's really important to know while reading Claudia Schiffer that Hannelore Knuts was on the Vogue Italia cover in 2001. Totally relevant and important to our readers. Not to mention that these templates are "in the middle of an expansion" since March. --Conti| 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These templates serve the same purpose as all templates that link people of common accomplishment. They are no different than say {{US Presidents}}, {{AcademyAwardBestSupportingActress 2001-2020}} or {{Heisman Trophy}}. They link articles that a reader of a particular subject may have an interest in and a need to find so that they can be accessed by a touch of a button. That is what a navigation template does. People who are interested in fashion have the same need to access articles about people of similar accomplishment as do people who are interested in sports, acting or politics. As for the expansion state, the last two decades have been becoming more and more complete (and thus more useful). I do not have access to resources to make them any more complete by myself immediately. I have attempted to use online resources but have at times found them incomplete and contradictory and the Chicago Public Library has limited resources. Also, note that the template is not cluttering articles because it is only linked to persons for whom modeling and fashion is their primary source of notability. Actresses and other celebrities who appear in the templates to not have these templates on their pages. Thus, while Claudia Schiffer and Kate Moss use these templates Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz do not. Also, note that for several people for whom fashion and modeling is their primary source of notability the template serves as an aid to the reader in assessing notability of the subject. For example, Karen Alexander, Michaela Bercu or Kara Young are well served by template that currently remain largely incomplete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One should assume that Vogue cover models of 1989 are more relevant to Vogue cover models of 1990 than to Vogue cover models of 1999. One should also assume that Vogue Italy cover models of are not very relevant to Vogue US cover models. These templates aren't really comparable to Template:US Presidents. Instead, it's more like Template:Heads of state of the four biggest countries from 1990-1999, which would make as much sense. Not to mention that these templates are often larger than the articles that they link to. Honestly, I don't get most of these navigational templates in general. Because we can sort people like that, doesn't mean we have to. I do not think we need to link from Jay Berwanger to Sam Bradford. Linking from both to List of Heisman Trophy winners seems to be much more appropriate to me. And, in this case, using a list seems like the better solution to me, too. --Conti| 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template clutter. Who appeared in one nation's cover in January 2002 is not relevant to who appeared in another nation's cover in August 2007. Resolute 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Navigation templates often serve to link articles of people of similar accomplishments. 2002 and 2007 persons who have done the same thing are as related as they always are for navigation templates. This nav template is no different. It just happens to be for fashion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, just template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For these articles, the templates are saving many of them from being isolated (I think you call them orphans). Although the templates may be large when expanded, they would only be expanded by someone looking for more information. Thus, it is not as if it appears in any unwanted form like a pop up ad or something. People who want to know about a models covergirl career can get extensive details with a few clicks conveniently with these templates. Also, I have gotten use to attempting to understand which models have been successful by conventional standards by looking at these templates. I do not think a separate list article would be well received by all you folks who create these deletion discussions either. So in my mind deleting this template would be tantamount deleting information from this encyclopedia that is useful and helpful. You folks would delete a separate list too. As I say the templates are not really a problem becuase they have been formatted so that they are not expanded and some open to the section with the models information automatically.--Babybambam (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have said before that he is my son. I don't vote on much, but when we talk about some things sometimes some issue are interesting and I vote. I don't vote much because you have too many rules about who can vote.--Babybambam (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is my big problem with this whole nomination. I have been through a similar nomination with debates over the now deleted {{NYRepresentatives}} template. In that case the fact that the template was large was a good reason to delete for three reasons that are not present in this case. 1.) List articles of Congressmen by state are unarguably encyclopedic; 2.) List articles of Congressmen for New York already existed; and 3.) without the template there was no risk of less well-remembered subjects of the template having stub articles deleted and redlinks left with no encouragement for article creation. With these templates a semi-forgotten model from 30 or 40 years ago could create an article without fear of it being deleted. Suppose a model appeared on the cover of one or two issues of Vogue in the 70s. If these templates remain, her fans could create an article and slap this template on it and no one would WP:AFD it. They would say yes she was a notable model. Without these templates such a subject would likely have trouble passing an WP:AFD. Furthermore, many of the articles that exist would become orphans and likely be deleted. In addition, all kinds of semi-related templates would get deleted until half the model are left with the option of saying so and so was best buddies with so and so to avoid being orphans.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, look at the content that is included in the templates. When I open Claudia Schiffer (since her article is at issue here) if you look at the 1990s template you can see she was a major force in the New York fashion scene, but less so in London, Paris and Milan although still a respectable presence in all. If you go to a person like Karen Mulder and look at the same template you might be surprised to learn that she was not a fashion Icon in Milan according to this fuzzy metric. There is a lot of encyclopedic content in these templates that is quite readily available with the touch of a few buttons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Where's the difference between "She's notable. Look at the template that shows that she's been on the cover of Vogue Italia in May 1984!" and "She's notable. Look at the article that says that she's been on the cover of Vogue Italia in May 1984!"? I'm pretty sure templates are not supposed to be used to establish notability. And these articles won't be orphans if there will be List of Vogue covers or something similar, either. And whether Karen Mulder was or was not a fashion icon in Milan can also be written into the article, if necessary. --Conti| 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, since Claudia Schiffer is an example you present, look at the information in the template for her article. You can tell which of the four major fashion centers she was most notable in. There is no encyclopedic source that says Karen Mulder was not an elite force in modeling in Milan, but clear inferences can be drawn from these templates. If I were debating with someone from Milan about whether Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer or Karen Mulder was an elite international model, I would better understand their perspective. List of Vogue covers is an article that you can easily pretend would be kept with a high degree of certainty, but everyone involved in deletion discussions knows it would be considered on the fringe of encyclopedic topics. Sure they are not suppose to be used to establish notability, but having a profession where 30% of the articles say model W is best friends with model X, model Y and model Z to avoid being orphans is not a better solution than these templates. Sure the top models of today will be kept but try to create an article for a model who appeared on one or two Vogue covers in the 70s without these templates and see if you can keep it out of WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Why Vogue and not Vanity Fair? Why not Vogue Mexico or Germany? Why does the template go on Schiffer's article and not Nicole Kidman's? The answers might be pretty obvious to some, but my issue is that the existence and placement of the templates depends on subjective criteria, which should never be the case. I mean, no opinions are involved in who goes into a U.S. Presidents template and where it goes—it's indisputable, and if it's not indisputable, it shouldn't be a template. I also take issue with some of the "keep" arguments made here. Templates are not made to trump the existence of significant coverage and avoid AfDs, and asserting that these templates are a way of assessing international impact as a model is absurd (Vogue covers are not the end-all be-all of modeling). These templates are a navigational tool, that's all, and trying to turn them into something they're not in order to keep them only points out that they fall short when looked at for simply what they are.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navigation template creep; appearance on a Vogue cover is not (with a few small exceptions) a defining characteristic of a person. Powers T 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—both out of eventualist considerations, and practical considerations—the subject is not important (not an important "mutual accomplishment"). The practical consideration is that the template is huge, and mostly empty. If it was reduced in a way that only names/years would be displayed, this consideration would be alleviated, leaving only the previous one. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything about these templates is subjective. If there were some objective criteria for establishing the content of these templates I would be more inclined to consider their usefulness, but as it is, I have to say I don't think these belong on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining, trivial, and unnecessary template clutter. PC78 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 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 speedy delete Plastikspork (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive Box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mis-use of Template space, Appears to be a archive from someones talk page, the template is orphaned and was created by someone who is now indef'ed as a sockpuppet. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 05:17, 14 August 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.