Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

March 24

Template:London Bus Routes

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 Keep. This is a navigational template which is used to link the (hundreds of) separate articles on the bus routes. The nominator's contention that is shouldn't be used for this purpose makes no sense. Happy‑melon 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London Bus Routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links in this navigation template point to the same article. Fred Bradstadt (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to provide sub-navigation within the article. Why don't you check with WP:LT as to whether it's needed. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - inappropriate nomination. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only proper usage is within List of bus routes in London. Now, I have no objection to a template which can only be used in one article, but template guidelines seem to be against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? It *is* used in many many articles! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be used only in List of bus routes in London. It can legitimately be used only in List of bus routes in London. That doesn't mean it isn't used in many articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On what basis? Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for navigation; for example London_Buses_route_410. Most of the routes are stubs, but there's potential to develop them like that one, hence the nav is useful. -- Chzz ► 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I can't actually see any policy reason for this deletion at all Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As all the links go to the same article, it should be replaced by a #See Also to that article. It may make a useful navagation section within the article, but I see no proper use of the template outside the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you at least link to any sort of policy which even hints at this? Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Arthur Rubin is hinting at the rule in Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage that "templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". However, I don't really see how that is relevant to this particular template since it does not link to just one article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - it is useful for navigation. Also, I don't see why there is any reason to delete it (theres no rules/reasons why linking to only one article is bad). Spacevezon (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to above Jenuk1985 above. Templates that link to just one article should always be expanded, deleted, or substituted into the article and then deleted. But, again, I'm not saying that this is the case with this particular template. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 30 March 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:Structure-Class

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Structure-Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and obscure assessment class. No indication as to how or where this would be used, as opposed to the likes of {{Category-Class}}, {{Project-Class}}, {{Template-Class}} et al. which have a clear and specific purpose. No edits since creation in 2006, and no evidence that it was ever used. PC78 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have no idea what this was intended for... My buest guess is that it was for pages (such as templates) that provide a "supporting structure" of sorts to articles, but we already have better-named classes for such pages, such as {{Template-Class}} and {{Redirect-Class}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 30 March 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:Reassess-Class

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reassess-Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and obscure assessment class created last September. No obvious value in such as class type (reassessments are typically requested at a WikiProject assessment page), and no evidence that this was ever used. PC78 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would seem that WPBannerMeta should have a flag "reassess=yes" instead of this class. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused and unnecessary; reassessments should continue to be requested at WikiProject assessment or talk pages. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:37, 30 March 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:Very-low-importance

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) 13:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Very-low-importance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Very Low-Importance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two unused and synonymous article importance types; both are unnecessary as two sub-low-importance types already exist ({{bottom-importance}} and {{no-importance}}). Edit summaries by creator suggest that this was a test. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{bottom-importance}}. Assessments on Wikipedia are already more complex than they should be and introducing a "very low importance" level has more downsides (complexity, extra maintenance, etc.) than advantages. ({{no-importance}} seems to be designed for disambiguation and redirect pages rather than very low-importance articles). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 30 March 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:VHS rationale

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. Fair use rationales should not be templated. Discussion of those other boilerplate rationales may be appropriate. Happy‑melon 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VHS rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused --Ged UK 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yeah, because its made to be subst'd. ViperSnake151 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fair use rationales are meant to be specific to every single use of the image, and a generic rationale template like this prevents that from happening. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This rationale template performs the same purpose that {{DVD rationale}} and {{Album cover fur}} perform for their respective media. Would you nominate those for deletion on the same grounds? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{DVD rationale}}, which appears to be identical. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although this should be substituted, a search shows it's only used once, and that use seems dubious, so I've nominated the file for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:19, 31 March 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:UtahSchoolDistrict

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan template that has been obsoleted by Template:Infobox School District. Gr0ff (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of School-related deletion discussions. -Gr0ff (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -Gr0ff (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -Gr0ff (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unused template. ☺ Spiby ☻ 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to a more general template. Having separate infoboxes for school districts in individual states is undesirable as it undermines consistency between school district articles across states. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 30 March 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:Magic secrets

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 withdrawn by nominator. --Joe 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magic secrets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template misrepresents Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of WP:Magic, but got involved second hand. Can you elaborate upon your concern? This template was created after a few months of contentious debates among the people at The Magic Wikiproject on what "secrets" can and cannot should be included in articles on magic. This template was the compromise reached among those people who felt that Wikipedia could/should include "secrets" and those people who felt that it should not. If there is a wording change that needs to occur, I have no problem with that, but I do oppose deleting the template as I believe the template serves a valuable role on articles on magic.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to notify Wikiproject Magic, as well as StephenBuxton and TenofAllTrades---the two people most heavily involved in the dispute about this discussion.

Comment. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic guidelines it points to also violate Wikipedia guidelines; we're not supposed to be the original source for information, but we're also not supposed to consider whether published information violates trade secret rules. In at least one of the articles where the information has been removed, it's taken from a patent, believe it or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that has to do with a guideline on their page, but that does not relate to this template. The template says that if something cannot be tied to a reliable source then it will be removed from the article. This is not a violation of WP policy or guidelines. Many people speculate on how magic tricks are performed and many people get the speculation wrong. If a person cannot provide a reliable source as to the secret, then it should be removed as otherwise it is Original Research, especially as Magic secrets are just that.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The template is fine except that the guideline pointed to is not. However, that pointer is part of the template, so the template as written still violates policy, and could be speedy-deleted under T3. A paradox.... Also, the template as used encourages magicians to remove the source of information and then bring the article to the attention of an uninvolved member of WP:MAGIC who doesn't bother to check whether the information had been sourced. This happened in at least one of of Stephen's edits today, although I couldn't confirm whether the source (a book) qualifies as an WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arthur Rubin's is upset because his unsourced method is being removed from an article. Rather than providing a source to support the inclusion of the method, which is all that we need, he has identified the actions of the admin who removed it as "vandalism" and immediately initiated this MFD to prove a point. If Authur would like to keep the method in the article, he simply needs to provide a source. Above he claims that it comes from "a patent, believe it or not" but he does not provide any proof of the claim. If such proof were provided, then the method he wishes to include would no longer be Original research, but based upon a reliable source. As it stands right now, this appears (to me) to be an attempt to make a POINT. Again, discussion and not assuming good faith edits are vandalism might be a better avenue. Simply find a source to support the "secret" you want in the article, without a source it was correctly removed---with or without the template.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article history, I found a claim that the reference is the source. Unless you want to make the claim that the person who stated that is lying, it should remain. I also noted that StephenBuxom removed the information from most of the articles before, and was promptly reverted, not always by me. But personal notes on the use of the template may not be appropriate in discussion of the deletion, if it could be used properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen only edited this article once and the only time he was reverted was by you when you called it vandalism. Now that you've added a source, and as the talk page references the source as reliable, the secret should not be removed. The template is there to ensure that only "secrets" which are really known are included in the article. If the secret is truly a secret and all we have is speculation, then it should not go in the article. The template also warns that relying on secrets on talk pages may not be safe as the secrets on talk pages may be incorrect or deliberately misleading.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The template, itself doesn't violate Wikipedia policy, and it can be used correctly. It's the guideline and the use of the template which violate Wikipedia policies. I'm not going to delete the TfD itself, but I suggest that the "rapid removal" method not be used except by experienced editors who verify that the material isn't sourced by a WP:RS which had been in the article previously. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 24 March 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.