Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 5

< May 4	May 6 >

May 5

Template:VVMAP/flickr

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 --Alexf^(talk) 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VVMAP/flickr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should probably be CSD'ed but I'm bring it here anyway. User created. Being used to include author and Flickr link within actual image thumb which is not proper as image pages already have such info. See how it's being used currently at Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - promotes improper image practice. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disregards MOS:IMAGES and WP:CAP. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest deletion of {{VVMAP/YouTube}} too (as well as its redirects at Template:VVMAP/media and Template:VVMAP/Video) since it's the same thing except only a YouTube version. I'll also point out that these appear to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject VVMAP, which is a project created by the creator of these templates. No issue here with the project but they need to get an understanding about templates and such. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:00, 6 May 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:Code block template

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind these templates seems to be a little mean spirited. Mike92591 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They seem silly to me. I originally intended to edit mergesort just now to remove an extraneous linebreak outside the code blocks. Then I caught a glance at two code block templates, which gave me pause along with a "What in the f—wait. Seriously?" Clicking through, it's unclear to me exactly what purpose these serve. So the fragments have their own history separate from the main article. There's the suggestion on the code block templates category page that this eliminates errors from poorly reasoned drive-by edits since they're harder to get to. I'm not sure what kind of fallacious reasoning allowed someone to arrive at the notion of equating familiarity with MediaWiki to being an authority on the subject. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now looking at Wikipedia:Template namespace, it's obvious to me that the use of these templates is really wrong. First, the names given to the templates themselves give no indication of the contents, but that's due to what's really at issue here: trying to shoehorn the role of templates to fulfill whatever purpose was being pursued at the time these were created. And I hate to keep referring to these as templates because all that's really being done is exploiting transclusion. These are single purpose templates that will only ever be used on the pages they were created for, and they specifically go against the directive about masquerading as article content. Subst and delete all templates in category. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of these templates was not to discourage editing, I emphasize. It was to allow the histories of these blocks to be monitored and tracked separately from the history of the main article, to prevent incorrect good-faith edits from getting lost in the history before they're reviewed. However, I don't have enough data to ascertain whether or not they have had any success in serving this purpose - the obvious disadvantage is that the main page is more likely to be watched, and that they're harder to edit. They were intended as an experiment, which is why I did not apply them to all articles containing pseudocode. I invite criticism of the idea and its de-implementation if consensus favours that, but I assure you this was not intended as a means of limiting access to content. I also advertised them widely at the time I created them and received very little feedback one way or another. Dcoetzee 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Wouldn't that only be an issue if it was edited extremely frequently? Mike92591 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the history were reviewed rarely, which is often the case for this class of article. The experiment was motivated by articles with months-old errors in code blocks that had not been reviewed and corrected. It's not proving to be very effective though, and ideally a better solution will be designed in the future. Dcoetzee 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move to main space would be appropriate, with a better naming scheme. The only real question being whether these could be used in multiple articles. They seem nicely designed, and there's no prohibition on transclusion of one short article within another longer one (using a leading colon used to work {{:main page title}}). Heck, that's similar to Wikipedia:Summary Style. You'll find that includeonly and noinclude work in main space! In fact, this was the original purpose of onlyinclude (see Wikipedia:Transclusion#Transclusion markup), so the main space transclusion would omit the lead section and trailing categories. (I've done this in the past, don't remember whether it's been outlawed since.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the template creator I would not support a move to namespace, and don't think these code blocks can realistically be used in multiple articles simultaneously. Dcoetzee 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then subst and delete
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete (or history merge) . The intention looks good, but it is true for just about every paragraph in WP; templates are not supposed - and should not evolve in that way - to be building blocks for articles, so this is also a misuse of template namespace. - Nabla (talk) 21:34, 17 May 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.

NFL Position Templates

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 (no consensus) Erik9 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:Current NFL long snappers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per the consensus brewing for the MLB position templates, I say these template should be considered as well. It's not encyclopedic to list them all as such, and it's quite outdated during an off-season. Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly normal templates, very useful. They aren't meant to be updated during the offseason because there is no "Starter" during the offseason. RF23 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These templates are quite useful and don't create any problems that I can see.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete b/c they can very easily become not up to date during the season and won't be useful per the previous reason.—Chris! _ct 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then why have Wikipedia? You don't delete articles/templates because of the possibility they won't be updated enough. It's on us to make sure that isn't the case. It certainly isn't a reason to delete them. They're all on my watch list, I'll make sure they're updated.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's not a question of whether it's up to date, it's a question of usefulness. What good use is a template that links all the current Punters together? It's easy to change a template, but why go through all the trouble of changing a template, then making the appropriate changes to the articles? I just don't see the point in them. Anthony Hit me up... 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to further the discussion along, the NBA and MLB templates were deleted... this one seems to be the only holdout. Anthony Hit me up... 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are useful and I see no good reason for their deletion. Pats1 ^T/C 11:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quit useful and there is no reason to delete it, but it should be ignored during the offseason --Nat682 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Ignored" during the offseason? Hard to do when they're right there on the pages. It still lists Favre with the Jets, Cassel with the Patriots, Cutler with the Broncos and several other out of date players, and it has to stay this way until September? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - That's the point of the template. It's the most recent starters in the NFL at certain positions. It's not a complex concept.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you missed my point, though. Obviously it's ignored, as in not updated, but it's hard to ignore it as in not pay attention to it when navigating. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are useful navigation tools. The off-season argument is meaningless; they're still the most recent NFL starters. —Lowellian (reply) 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these are going to be kept, the QB template should be merged with this one. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly useful. They aren't meant to be updated during the offseason they are updated starting week 1 and ending week 17. RF23 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. WP is not a newspapper, and these may, and will, change daily. - ----

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:Image-license

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 as historical.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-license (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template, Imbox is now used for this purpose. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is used with subst: so its usage cannot be tested with 'What links here' and it cannot be assumed that it is no longer in use. If it is depreciated, then tag it as such. If it is truly no longer in use, tag as Historical as the template's talk page contains information that should be kept. Tothwolf (talk) 02:26, 12 May 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:BLP probably unsourced

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. The template has been modified to more clearly reflect the purpose.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP probably unsourced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Unsourced BLP, the fact this says its for BLP's that are "probably" unsourced made me chuckle a bit. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wha? An article is either sourced or it is not, there is no inbetween. I clicked on the first dozen uses of this template, and all articles were completely unsourced. A comment by the template creator in the edit summary reads "see edit history at Template:BLP unsourced", which suggests a fork of some kind, though I've looked at both the edit history and talk page for that template and I'm none the wiser. PC78 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn following changes to the template to clarify its usage, though a prompt to replace the template with {{BLP unsourced}} might still be worth adding. PC78 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How in the world can an article be "probably" unsourced? The sourced-ness of an article is unambiguously determinable by looking at it. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Keep, as this has been clarified. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably delete. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Keep Now that it makes sense. Maralia (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is intended for the tagging of unsourced articles by automated processes which may occasionally produce false positives, as described in a comment [1] which was included in the wikitext of the template at the time it was nominated for deletion. I created the template for the specific purpose of facilitating the bot task described in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 6, which was approved for tagging articles with this template only, not Template:BLP unsourced. Erik9 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That being the case, it should be noted clearly within the banner text that the tag has been placed by an automated process request that the reader either remove it or replace it with {{Unsourced BLP}}. _wjemather ^bigissue 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense, but the template itself does not. Per wjemather I would suggest rewriting it so that it says something like "This article has been identified by a bot as being probably unsourced" (I'm sure someone else could do better, but you get the idea). I'll quite happily withdraw my delete comment if these concerns are addressed. PC78 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, why not add some sort of "bot=yes" paramater to {{Unsourced BLP}} saying something like "This tag was placed by an automatic process, if this tag was placed in error, please remove it" instead? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the template to clarify its usage [2]. If there's a consensus to merge to Template:BLP unsourced, it will be necessary for an administrator to add a "bot" parameter to the latter template, as it is fully protected. However, I can use my bot, under Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 7, to convert all existing instances of Template:BLP probably unsourced to appropriately parameterized calls to Template:BLP unsourced. Erik9 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "auto=yes" with two possible courses of action: if the tag is placed in error, remove it (still: is there something which will prevent it from being added again?); if the tag is correctly placed, remove the "auto=yes" parameter. GregorB (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but implement Wjemather's suggestion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Modification removes any problems I trust. Collect (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a template that identifies a problem and the fact that a bot put it on the page is useful. Might not have been when it was first nominated, but it looks good now. Frank | talk 11:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what ViperSnake151 suggested. I support the idea of a bot tagging, an ViperSnake151's idea is good. Rettetast (talk) 00:39, 10 May 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:The 2008 Open Championship at Royal Birkdale Golf Club

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 Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The 2008 Open Championship at Royal Birkdale Golf Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary template apparently created for use on a single page. _wjemather ^bigissue 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was used in an article, I'd suggest substing there first. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 5 May 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.

All American Football League roster templates

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 all Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Roster templates for teams of a football league that has been proposed since 2006, with its debut pushed back (an unofficial term for "folded") for four years. Most players are non-notable, making a collection of them even less useful. These can be re-created if the league ever actually starts, and they are deemed useful. Grsz¹¹ 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Team Arkansas roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Team Florida roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Team Michigan roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Team Tennessee roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Team Texas roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Team Alabama roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete Collection of some non-notable players, some are like Clint Stoerner and Rod Smart but most are not.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It says that when the launch was postponed, all players were released to free agency anyway. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 7 May 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.