Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

Template:1984 Bowling Green Falcons ice hockey

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 Maxim_(talk) 13:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1984 Bowling Green Falcons ice hockey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previous consensus against championship ice hockey team templates. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:1915_Vancouver_Millionaires. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A template of red links, yay! Delete. Grsz ¹¹ 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior precedent, why would we use these for college teams when we don't use them for pro? --Pparazorback (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template is irrelevant and useless with that many red links. Jc121383 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very large amount of prior consensus on not using these sorts of templates. -Djsasso (talk) 03:29, 27 January 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:WikiProject Hello! Project

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) 05:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Hello! Project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used and the template is redundant to a better-designed template (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project/Navbox). ☆Charles Nguyễn 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unused and unlikely to be used. Terraxos (talk) 00:41, 28 January 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:Current court case

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 no consensus to delete. delldot ∇. 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template overkill. "This article documents a current court case. Information may change as the case progresses." is what the template says, and with that it's not saying anything the lead of the article doesn't already say. It's redundant. There's no need for a template that warns the reader that this article is about a current court case when the very first sentence of the article itself says the same thing. There's no need for a template to warn the reader that "information may change", either, because we assume that our readers are smart enough to have figured that out themselves (I changed this from "information may change rapidly" here because, well, read the edit summary). Not to mention that court cases tend to take a very, very long time, and the template might stay on articles for years. There's just no reason to have this template, unless we want to give in to our urges to have nice, shiny boxes with bits of information on top of everything. Conti|✉ 12:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion It can also be used informatively within articles such as United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see how the template is used informatively in that article. The section isn't solely about a court case, so I'd say that the use of the template in that section is misleading at best. --Conti|✉ 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Court cases don't change rapidly enough to warrant this warning. Rillian (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the very least, it is useful for informing people that a current matter is the subject of pending/ongoing litigation. Admittedly, court cases can drag on for a long time (especially in the U.S.), but I don't think that fact alone warrants the deletion of this template. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 21:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the job of the very first sentence of the corresponding articles! Take al-Marri v. Pucciarelli as a random example: "al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court (...)" (emphasis mine). I don't get why we need to reiterate the same information in a fancy box right above that sentence. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify. The main problem with articles about ongoing court cases is not so much that the articles can change rapidly as trying to negotiate the rules of sub judicae. It is definitely worth having a templatee that notes that some information is not only inappropriate for an article but may be illegal to add. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean a template to be added to all articles about current curt cases, or a template to be added when there are problems in articles about current curt cases? The latter sounds fine to me, but that'd be an entirely different template. The former would be a disclaimer, and we don't do disclaimers. --Conti|✉ 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant in the former type, though either makes sense. I don't see how it's a disclaimer to have a template saying something like "Parts of this article deal with an ongoing court case - as such details of the case should only be added with care (see sub judicae)". There's a wealth of difference between putting a disclaimer note on a film plot and warning editors about the potential legal consequences of adding "plot elements" to an article on an ongoing court case. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose that would give the template some purpose, at least. Then again, we usually add templates for our editors to the talk page, and templates for our readers to the article, since we don't need to warn our readers of any possible legal consequences when editing. A commented out warning would work much better, IMHO, since it would reach only the people who do the actual editing. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify. More applicable to sections than whole articles. MikeHobday (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People go on living for decades, but that's no reason not to keep the "Living person" template on their articles that whole time. ~ MD Otley (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. We don't have any "Living person" templates on articles. We have them on the talk page. We especially do not have a "This person is currently alive. Information may change." template. Although that may come eventually. :-) --Conti|✉ 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't the reasoning of the nom apply just as well to most of the "current" temporal templates; the first sentence of an article about an ongoing sports event (for which {{Current sport}} exists) or an ongoing labor action ({{ongoing strike}}), after all, will almost certainly make clear that article discusses a current event. (I don't here take a position on whether the specific varieties of {{current}} should go (and it is fair to say that there exists [or existed at last measure] a consensus for the general usage of {{current}} and {{future}}, so I don't know that it would be useful for us to revisit the grand, overarching issue); I mean only to suggest that it seems to me that the fate of many of the temporal templates should follow from the fate of that at bar, unless I've missed something that distinguishes this one, as well I might have.) Joe 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yes. Template:Current was initially created for articles about big, current events that received dozens of edits per minute. It was a note for our readers (and not our editors) that the article containing the template is being edited heavily (indicating that the article might contain vandalism, outdated information or that checking back in an hour might be a good idea). That, for some reason, spawned countless templates about anything that can be considered "current". Then, it spawned countless templates about anything that can be considered a "future"-something. I've nominated this template because it seemed particularly silly to me, given the initial purpose of the "current"-template(s). Court cases do not receive lots of edits, and there's no need whatsoever to warn our readers about the fact that a court case is current. A discussion about the "current"-templates in general sounds like a good idea to me, although I'm not quite sure where it should happen. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could be useful. Jason (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Court cases are unlikely to change rapidly, which is the usual problem with current-event-related articles, and this template adds nothing that shouldn't be in the lead already. Terraxos (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful, though more for sections than articles since on articles about pending cases (such as Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations) there's already lead wording asserting that a case is ongoing. Have there really been court cases that have caused heavy Wikipedia traffic? Then I guess there could be a reason for the "information may change rapidly" sentence. And then in some events that get challenged in court, such as the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota, the template is pretty much the only way to assert that it's happening. Overall the template emphasizes that the case is a current event like everything else tagged as "current".--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful in notifying that the court case is current, it may be redundant, but I think it has some use. Actually, I think a tag for sections would be useful as well --Pstanton (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This kind of tags is meant for readers and not for editors. The leading paragraph can explain that what the reader reads is a current court case. Things don't seldom change rapidly in court cases and court cases maybe current for months or years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Court cases can sometimes drag on for years and don't change that rapidly. The current events tag is more than sufficient. --Peephole (talk) 20:58, 2 February 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:Template:Wikiportal:Tamil Nadu/Quote

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) 05:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Template:Wikiportal:Tamil Nadu/Quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nonsense page name, unused. I assume this is somehow related to WP:INTN or Portal:Tamil Nadu, but it doesn't appear there. The creator is the only editor, and made only 3 edits, this one coming a year later than the other two. This, that and the other _[talk] 09:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt this is nonsense as such, but I doubt it's of any use either. If it's not used anywhere, then it can safely be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 00:40, 28 January 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:Discussion top, Template:Discussion bottom

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 keep --Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discussion top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Discussion bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template pair significantly and detrimentally impedes the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia rests. The pair is being applied far too often, and many times insiduously, to abort discussions, by some editors who have taken it upon themselves to act in an arbiting capacity that they haven't rightfully been assigned. meco (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. These templates are used all over Wikipedia (see all links on one page). As much as it is a poor reason, it would do far more harm than good to delete these. Archived discussions are not to be edited. When it is used poorly, then more specific comments should be made to the user who misuses it. This, that and the other _[talk] 09:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As noted, these are heavily in use. Moreover, there's nothing about these templates that grants anyone "an arbiting capacity that they haven't rightfully been assigned" - when archiving is harmful, it can be reverted or bypassed, and often is. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are heavily in use but they can still be nulled with no ill side-effects. If they are "soft deleted", i.e. converted into null templates which yield no text on the pages where they have been placed, the only consequence would be to lift an injunction on further commenting and responding in the respective sections. Why do we need to archive text twice in the first place? These templates effectually constitue premature archiving. And sure, they can be reverted, however, in exactly those instances where a contentious conflict lay at the root of the "pre-archiving" such an action by itself would effect a rise of the conflict level, with the likelyhood of hard intervention to stop the conflict instead of a conciliatory closure. Thus, in those cases where someone was attempting to strongarm an opponent using this template to terminate inconvenient objections, reverting the placement of the template pair would surely be followed by accusations of "trolling" and disruptive behavior. This template pair provides a much too convenient tool for stifling fertile and consensus-forming dialog to justify their continued use. __meco (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are useful templates for archiving things such as merge discussions, and if someone wants to reopen a discussion they can always just start a new section. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a behavioral and cultural issue. Deletion of these templates will not stop the attempts of editors to prematurely close discussions which they do not like. However, the majority of the uses of this template are not abusive, and those that are can be reverted easily. They are quite useful on pages such as WP:AN and WP:ANI, where, once a decision has been carried out, it is usually a good idea to set apart the bit of the discussion which resulted in that decision. I've used these on my own talk page, I've used these to close merge and WP:RM discussions, I've used them all over the place, and I've never had a justified complaint that I misused it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not a great fan of these and do not use them in summarizing the conclusion of, for example, a merge discussion on a talk page. However, I see no reason why others should not use them and agree with all the points above. If they are misused, we tackle the misuse not the templates.--Bduke (Discussion) 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in agreement with Aervanath above. Deleting these templates won't solve the problem, better administrative oversight will. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note on procedure. Neither of these templates have been tagged with the {{TFD}} template. Requests using {{editprotected}} to have this done have been turned down citing that the templates are in use on less than 5 pages. __meco (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Huh? Special:Whatlinkshere indicates a lot more than 5 transclusions. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. I'm bewildered whether I should attempt to appeal the refusal or wait and see if somebody reads about it here and intervenes. Furthermore, I posted to the mailing list for the English Wikipedia, WikiEn-l, more than 24 hours ago and it is still awaiting moderator approval before being sent out. So far, only those who happen to have stumbled upon the nomination directly on this page (or via those people) will know about this. __meco (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Premature archiving, particularly on AN and AN/I, where we often exacerbate situations by dismissing summarily new editors who likelier than not are editing in good faith and think themselves, even if usually wrongly, to have been the victim of some untoward overreach by a rogue admin (that's just a rant that's been rolling around in my head as I see WP:BITE violated again and again at WP:VP and its subpages and AN and AN/I, to the detriment, quite plainly, of the project, is a real (and really pernicious) problem (although not the worst premature thing that might happen to one), but unless the deleterious uses of a template clearly and necessarily (that is, without recourse, by the very nature of the template) outweigh its benefits, deletion is not counseled; it is true that the utility here isn't overwhelming, but inasmuch as there are ways one may undertake to limit the misuse of the template, I can't see that the template's ills clearly overcome its usefulness. I do think it might be useful to caution against the overuse of the template as a means by which to foreclose on a discussion that the archiver thinks to be of little value where it is not clear that the community are likely to share that assessment (whatever may be the value of our not beating to death dead horses and however important it might be that we continue to be a project in which not every action need be hashed out—WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and Wiki#Characteristics—we must always err on the side of more discussion than on that of less, of longer discussion than on that of shorter) in the template documentation, and I suppose that a discussion toward that end might be best started at VPP. Joe 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely used, useful templates. Mecos's "I don't like it, so delete it" attitude is a bit disappointing. Grsz ¹¹ 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grsz11. No reason for these to be deleted. GlassCobra 16:01, 25 January 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:Baldwin brothers

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baldwin brothers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why? The biographies of the four each include the names of the other brothers. This is a fluff template with no actual usage beyond these four articles and simply serves to take up space. I see no justification in its existence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - as these articles all link to each other already, there's no real need for a navigational template here. Terraxos (talk) 00:38, 28 January 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:Alpha subpages

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template that lists pagename/A, pagename/B, pagename/C, etc. I am having trouble imagining a use for it and the author is no longer active for me to inquire. B (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not of great benefit. This, that and the other _[talk] 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no obvious current use. Terraxos (talk) 00:35, 28 January 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.