Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

Template:NNAA 3A

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. This is an extremely difficult close, but I must conclude that these templates serve little or no valid purpose as navigational tools. The use of sockpuppetry in their defence does nothing to convince me that they can stand on their own merits. As noted, they are inherently inaccurate, do not present a balanced or complete view of the schools' activities, and do not highlight a notable or useful connection between the articles. The inclusion of details of the athletics activities in each school article is valuable. Navboxes linking otherwise disconnected topics are not. . Happy‑melon 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NNAA 3A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template purports to list all New Mexico Activities Association "AAA" schools, but this is misleading. NMAA classifies individual sports within a school, not the school as a whole. See the discussion at NMAA Handbook Section IV: Alignment and Classification. Some schools compete in other classes in some sports; for example, Dexter High School, NMMI, Cuba High School, and Laguna Acoma High School, which are listed here as AAA schools, compete in AA Football. Swimming/Diving doesn't have a division into classes at all.

The alignments into districts given here are for basketball; alignments in other sports often differ from what is here. There are 5 districts for basketball but the AAA schools are divided in to 4 districts for Cross Country, Football, and Golf, and 3 districts for Tennis and Wrestling. Alignments are very different for sports with a smaller number of districts.

The present template seems intended to show which schools compete with each other, but it is only approximately accurate because it only shows data for basketball. It might not be a useful addition to the articles even if it were accurate, so I propose that it be deleted. Uncia (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see TfD discussion of related and similar Template:NNAA 4A. --Uncia (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Uncia is harping on the very small number of exceptions. For most schools 90% of their sports of in only 1 classification. The template is a useful reference for that classification. The template also contains district data which is flawless. Ryan Utt (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not enthusiastic about keeping a template for which "most" of the data is "90% accurate". The only way I see to salvage this template would be to recognize that it accurately describes the basketball classification and alignment, and label it as such, rather than more broadly as "AAA schools". --Uncia (talk) 23:24, 3 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:Particle

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 Move (without creating a redirect) to {{ProLog}}. The template had been called ProLog untile December 2005, when it was moved to the current name. So I think the number of damaged historical revisions will be limited. On the other hand the current name is more suitable for particle physics, and nobody objected to the move during 3 weeks of the discussion. Ruslik (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, bad/misleading name.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is actually in use on some historic lists of protected pages. It is similar to {{la}}, but for linking to an article and its protection log, eg, Virginia Tech Hokies football (talk · history · watch · protection log). I don't really care one way or the other if it is kept or not, but I think it's potentially useful, although there is probably another template that duplicates its purpose. --B (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that is blocks the "Particle" template which could be used for a particle related templates. It could be renamed to something like {{p-article}} instead, but I lack the admin rights to fix this. Alternatively, it could be replaced by the equivalent templates actually used such as {{article}}. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's renamed, a bot could fix it in the few remaining pages that use it. The one issue with that it is that any page histories where it was once used get destroyed. That probably doesn't matter too terribly much except for looking at old contributions for either an RFA or an arbcom case. Even so, both of those may be reason enough to leave it. (I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, just that it needs to be thought out.) --B (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:ProLog (which is an existing redirect to this template). This template itself isn't a problem, and it is in fact used on a few pages - but the name is ambiguous and misleading, and renaming it would free up the name 'Template:Particle' for a template related to particles. Terraxos (talk) 19:56, 31 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:NNAA 4A

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. per above.. Happy‑melon 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NNAA 4A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is misleading to speak of "AAAA schools" as this template does. NMAA classifies individual sports within a school, not the school as a whole. See the discussion at NMAA Handbook Section IV: Alignment and Classification. It's true that each school has a nominal classification based on its size of enrollment, but schools may choose to participate in a different classification. For example, Albuquerque Academy, which is listed as a "AAAA District 5" school in this template, has a high-school enrollment of about 650 and so would nominally be a AAA school (the lower limit for AAAA is 800), but it chooses to participate in AAAA in most sports, and in "AAA District 4" in basketball and in "A-AAAA District 2" in swimming and diving; see NMAA Albuquerque Academy. The present template seems intended to show which schools compete with each other, but it is only approximately accurate because it doesn't give a breakdown by sport. It might not be a useful addition to the articles even if it were accurate, so I propose that it be deleted. --Uncia (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --There is no reason that this template should be deleted, Obviously Unica does not know how the NMAA works their classication system, this is a useful template. I belive it informs the public of the classifictaion system in New Mexico, With out these templates people would be lost, and links to these high-schools would vanish. This or "These" templates are not misleading in anyway. By the way, a AAAA school requires 650-700 students under current NMAA constitution, an ongoing proposal is going on with the NMAA to change that. DianaRuiz (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DianaRuiz (talk · contribs · logs · block log), the author of the preceding comment, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. --Uncia (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see TfD discussion of related and similar Template:NNAA 3A. --Uncia (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fix the flaws, keep the template. Don't delete the template just because you're sore about AA being miscategorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Utt (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template suffers from generally the same problems as Template:NNAA 3A (see TfD discussion), namely that it accurately describes the basketball alignment and classification but is not very accurate for other sports. I suggest that it could be salvaged by labeling it as something like "AAAA Basketball", rather than "AAAA Schools". But I'm not convinced that such a narrow template would be useful. --Uncia (talk) 23:33, 3 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:Kaymer's 59

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) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kaymer's 59 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was only used in one article. Not used any more. bigissue (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused template. ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and obsolete. Terraxos (talk) 19:52, 31 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:Electronics

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) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in mainspace, uses old infobox style, name is ambiguous and it has been partially superseded by Template:Infobox electronic component Papa November (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and obsolete. Terraxos (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obso-delete. --Peephole (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge into the new template. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new template isn't based on the old template, so I think merging the histories would be misleading. Papa November (talk) 10:03, 3 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:Infobox Director of the Office of Management and Budget

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Director of the Office of Management and Budget (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Despite the title, the template is not an infobox, and consists solely of the phrase "Director of the Office of Management and Budget". It is currently unused, except for a test edit that I made in the sandbox in order to verify that it wasn't an infobox, and I can see no reason why it would ever be used for anything. Unscented (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as test page. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How do we know it's a test page?--Unscented (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no obvious use. Terraxos (talk) 19:52, 31 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.