Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7

[edit]

Template:Aston Villa Squad 1982 European Cup

[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) 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aston Villa Squad 1982 European Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is a general consensus at WP:FOOTY against navboxes for individual championship-winning teams. – PeeJay 22:56, 7 September 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:Queensland Roar W-League squad 2009 W-League championship

[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) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queensland Roar W-League squad 2009 W-League championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is a general consensus at WP:FOOTY against navboxes for individual championship-winning teams. – PeeJay 22:40, 7 September 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 Moldovan Location

[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) 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Moldovan Location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Disused template. Himalayan 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disused template that has been rejected by WP:Moldova. It is disused for a reason and is obviously not on the same level as the Australian template. Himalayan 16:54, 8 September 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:Place in Mexico

[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) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Place in Mexico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, with which instances should be replaced. Used only twice. Unused. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Conversion will be carried out before deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added infoboxes to thousands of Mexican articles. This template has never been used or accetped by WP:Mexico of which I'm a member. I don't see the reasoning for keeping unused templates which are never going to be used unless somebody undoes all of the thousands of other infoboxes and replaces them with this just for the sake of it... Himalayan 10:33, 9 September 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 Texas suburb

[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) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Texas suburb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} {{Geographic Location}} with which instances should be replaced. Used only 11 times. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Conversion will be carried out before deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • This id the problem with your process is the lack of WP:AGF, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. Gnangarra 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to regionalization (for example, through national-level templates using {{Infobox settlement}} as a framework), but no reasonable level of regionalization distinguishes suburbs in Texas from other types of settlements in Texas, or suburbs in the rest of the United States. And please take any personal disputes elsewhere. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that rarely-used hyper-specific templates are better than more general ones. What type of regional distinctions do you think suburbs in Texas need from say, big cities in Texas, or suburbs in Oklahoma? --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing special about Texas suburbs which constitutes its own template. I can see apossible several thousand templates being made for the sake of it, like Infobox Kentucky unincorporated community etc, Infobox Topeka neighborhood, etc. Redudant. Himalayan 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chicago neighborhood uses {{infobox settlement}}, (e.g., Chicago Loop) and I see no reason why Texas suburb would deserve special treatment. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC) As redundant to {{Geographic Location}} or a simple wikitable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but backend to Settlement. Merge to {{Geographic Location}} per Plastikspork. After someone less flu-ridden than me got me to look at the source (I simply looked at an implementation of it), I've realised it actually has nothing to do with Settlement, they're not even trying to fulfil the same purpose. Orderinchaos 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from reading the above discussion it is quite clear that nobody actually looked to see what this template does, including the nominator. I too am guilty of assuming that this template created the top level infobox. But no, check the source code, it creates the little Compass-table, and is hence redundant to {{Geographic Location}} or better yet, redundant to a simple wikitable. I am keeping my vote as delete, but I am striking my initial erroneous assumption that it is somehow related to {{infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I took your word for the function of this one (I do usually check) because it seemed so blatantly over-specific just from the name. However, the specific form of the redundancy doesn't change my !vote or any of my arguments above. --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 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:Nosubst

[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The sole purpose of this template appears to be for the purpose of subverting WP:SIG#NT. It (or a different version with the same name) has been nominated for deletion before [2], so is possibly a CSD candidate. In the first discussion, AzaToth (the first creator) couldn't remember why they made it. It appears to have no use, except for use in raw signature text - so I put the TFD notice on the talk page so as not to seriously mess up people's sig's (I have no idea how well the parser handles noincludes within sig's, so not taking any chances here). Franamax (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that edit (to the template. what the retiring user does to their own uspacepages is a whole different thing) - looking like we need a speedy here as disruption-only now. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 14 September 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:Multilicense replacing placeholder

[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 withdraw by nominator. (non-admin closure) –blurpeace (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Self. What exactly is the point of this template? –blurpeace (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for now! It is not exactly redundant. The use of this template is detailed in the now inactive, controversial Wikipedia:Image placeholders. Under this system, File:Replace this image male.svg or File:Replace this image female.svg was placed on articles about living people that have no current free image. If a user wanted to upload a freely-licensed image for them, they were instructed to use a special link to upload the new picture. These newly uploaded pictures would then be tagged with {{Multilicense replacing placeholder}}. A reviewer going through Category:Images of people replacing placeholders, preferably an admin, would then review the image to verify the copyright and source. If it was a copyright violation (which a majority of these replacements were), it was posted for deletion. If it was a legit free image, the reviewer would change the "reviewed" parameter on the template to "1", and it would be categorized elsewhere.
Although WP:UPPI became inactive after a long discussion, there are still images currently in Category:Images of people replacing placeholders. Therefore, I do not recommend deleting this template until all the images have been checked out. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "reviewed=" bit is kinda critical since the uploads are so full of copyvios they need to be checked before going to the general population of images.Genisock2 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks for the information. Nominated the template for two reasons: was under under the impression it was redudant, and the unsureness of its use. I think I'll withdraw for obvious reasons. –blurpeace (talk) 21:36, 7 September 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:Intro-version

[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) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{POV}}, with which instances should be replaced. The template reads "This article's introduction has been changed in a substantial way, and it is being disputed whether this version is superior or inferior to the previous version." In these case editors may put up a POV tag and discuss on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The POV-intro template does not accomplish the task AT ALL. The is not a POV issue template. This is a QUALITY issue template. This template serves to help prevent edit wars while it's discussed in Talk whether one version is better overall than the other, instead of back and forth reverting. To put a POV tag on the intro, when the dispute is not over POV doesn't make sense. Moreover, it's worded NPOV and even notes the third alternative of compromise to combine elements of the competing versions. By the way, I'm the creator of this template, and for background information, this "The Four Deuces" person has been going around deleting almost everything I do on Wikipedia, so this just a continuation of the pattern. Introman (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the debate is merely about QUALITY then there is no need to have a tag at all. Tags are there to help the readers not to alert editors. A POV tag alerts a reader that an article may be biased. But there is no reason to alert a reader that editors are arguing over which version of an introduction is better written. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you don't know one of the main purposes of tags. They are to prevent edit wars. Only a subset of all the templates are concerned with POV issues. Introman (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this template does inform the reader that there is a current debate and that perhaps the introduction is not stable. I hate tags like this because editors add them and then just leave them thinking they have done something good. Perhaps they such have an expiration date. –droll [chat] 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have {{Intro-rewrite}}, {{Intro-toolong}}, {{Intro-tooshort}} and various tags for POV, etc. Concerns about the content and format of an intro can be tagged with those as appropriate. If the lead doesn't have any of those problems, then we don't need to warn readers about it, which is what this type of template is supposed to do. Edit wars are prevented by the editors discussing issues on the talk page, not by placing tags on the article. (Plenty of articles with tags still have edit wars.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919. This template is essentially 'this article is currently undergoing an edit war', and that's not the kind of thing we draw attention to with templates. Templates pointing out specific problems with the intro should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RL0919. Likeminas (talk) 22:45, 8 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_7&oldid=1079913773"