Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

January 13

Template:New Jersey Prep

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Jersey Prep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copied from MfD:

This template's stated goal (as read in the talk page and by virtue of its title) was to include every private high school in the state of New Jersey. It barely even comes close, and it very much has a North Jersey favoritism slant. Additionally, the article that it uses as its focal reference is an incomplete list itself. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vote. @harej 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is restricted to schools with blue links. It was originally intended just for those that a reliable source has called a "prep school", and can be cut back to that is if grows too big. We should be fixing, not deleting incomplete projects. Wikipedia is never complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is every single school in the template from upper Central or North Jersey? You know there are a number of private and prep schools in South Jersey too. Also, if it includes only schools with blue links, it still falls drastically short of what private schools do exist with blue links. To me, this template is unnecessary because of the aforementioned article, which clearly provides a much better and more extensive list (even if some of the pages do not yet exist). Jrcla2 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking my why an article, or category, or template is incomplete serves no purpose, there is no answer. All of Wikipedia is incomplete. Deleting something that is incomplete is equally silly. Also, a prep school is a type of boarding school to differentiate it from a local private commuter high school. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia rules demands removing built in redundancy. Lists, navigation templates, categories all compliment each other in their redundancy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make articles on schools not yet included, so they can be added here. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it may be missing some linked articles; but the most constructive solution for that would be to add the links, not to propose deletion. It's a suitable template.—DMCer™ 07:48, 20 January 2010 (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:Attrib-WC

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 per WP:CSD#T2. NW (Talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attrib-WC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is essentially a signature to be added to a mainspace article, attributing the article to a particular source, in violation of the WP:SIGNATURES policy. It can also be considered as spam for that source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another of User:Drsjpdc's attempts to promote himself and chiropractic, which seems to be the only thing he's done since he came here. It's his wiki and here you'll find more information about his misuse of Wikipedia articles there. It's especially ironic that he steals articles from here without attribution, does what he calls "chirofying" to them (making them non-NPOV chiro propaganda), and yet expects that articles from his wiki should be attributed when used here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubly so because WP can no longer accept GFDL-only content now that we've relicensed under CC-BY-SA. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure this template even satisfies the GDFL conditions for attribution, since it doesn't point to a specific location for the contribution history. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2010 (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:Go

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) 16:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary duplication of existing templates; is not used in any articles; is slightly more verbose/complicated. It's been 3+mos since the prior TfD and no such proposal to replace the duplicated templates with this one was ever made. Cybercobra (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is currently an unnecessary duplication of existing templates. The suggestions that were made on the previous TFD three months ago appear to have not been followed through. I currently do not see any significant progress in either experimentation or making policy proposals to possibly use this to replace all hatnote templates Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominator neglected to specify the previous discussion and neglected to notify its other participants. This template is a work in progress intended to streamline hatnotes by replacing all of the templates listed at Template:Otheruses templates (transcluded by WP:HAT) and some others, and currently replaces some of them. Articles are not the only place where templates may be used, especially during development. I am sorry that I have not had sufficient time to work on this template lately, that I have not had the time or experience to make the appropriate proposal in the appropriate venue, and that I have not attracted the attention of any Wikimedia Foundation developers who might provide a good technical reason why this template could not eventually replace its predecessors, or any other template coders or others who might help me. All help in these areas would be welcome. — Jeff G. ツ 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would userification be a workable compromise? As to your first comment, you as creator were notified, and in my experience at AfD, previous deletion discussants not typically notified in subsequent nominations, so it is inaccurate to characterize lack of such notification as "neglect". --Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not AfD. — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, this template, if userfied, would not be usable even where it is used now on Category Talk pages, and it should be saved per WP:IDL, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:LEADER, WP:DOUBT, and WP:RUSH. — Jeff G. ツ 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of those are for articles, their application to templates is more questionable; userfication would make most of the concerns expressed therein not applicable. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just for clarification on intended use, is it supposed to be a metatemplate, or is it meant for direct use in articles? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is meant for direct use anywhere it is appropriate. — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it just seems to add a level of complexity and slightly increased verbosity with no big offsetting gain, imo. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per server load concerns previously voiced in the last TfD . 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, don't really have anything to add here -- it's unnecessary complexity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why would we want to make hatnote templates longer? Replacing a set of templates with one template plus a new parameter generally makes them longer and harder to use. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (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:Def Jam South

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 Moot given deletion by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G3. — Jeff G. ツ 03:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Def Jam South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created by a user all of whose edits save one are hoax vandalism. The user was creating hoax articles trying to claim that Nathan Kress is a major hip hop singer signed to Def Jam South Records. This is nonsense on its face, and my attempt to db-hoax this template was removed by an editor with no knowledge of the editor's history and no attempt to contact me to discuss why I felt this is a hoax. If somebody can find reliable sources that these musicians are signed to Def Jam South (including Nathan Kress, right there in the template), then fine, but otherwise, this is vandalism. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khaled is the president of the label [1] and even his article doesn't include him on DJS.
The label is a real subsidiary of Island/DefJam as seen in the logo collection on http://islanddefjam.com/about.aspx
Mannie Fresh's myspace page shows he is signed to DJS [2]
Rick Rubin and Russell Simmons are the founders of Def Jam but i don't think either have released anything in the southern hip-hop genre on DJS.

Def Jam appears not to distinguish some of the imprints and subsidiary labels if they do not not have numerous well known artists. I would not call the template a hoax or vandalism but it is in need of a re-write. I am not a fan of hip-hop and know almost nothing of Def Jam other than to say i wish Chris Blackwell had not sold the greatest indie label the world will ever know and have it now mixed with Def Jam. I've been at this for two hours now and it is just not happening. If Def Jam wants to list their artists on the main-name label then this is, as i am seeing now, an exercise in futility. Ten Pound Hammer re-tagged per CSD G3 so i don't know if it is even worth this TfD. I can't even find a website from Def Jam South, but there is a Def Jam South myspace page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:14, 14 January 2010 (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.