Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16

Template:T7789

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't appear to be in use and it seems worthless, being that it only replaces {{T7789}} (ṭ) with ṭ (ṭ). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Durin 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary templates in Wikipedia. Daniel's page ☎ 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no point in having this. Sophy's Duckling 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Swift 11:46, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Betterfact

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template causes harm to the appearance of articles that is much greater than any benefit it might provide. By definition, it is only used to mark statements that have already been sourced, and it does so with a very large and intrusive marker. Also, there is no established criterion for when the template should be removed. Supposing a better reference is found, who is to say this template can't be reapplied asking for a still better reference, ad infinitum? I therefore nominate this template for deletion. Instead of using this template, requests for better references should be made on an article's talk page. dryguy 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. dryguy 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Details below. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the specific problem that I was trying to solve when Anville and I created this template. There is an article called List of bisexual people. A few months ago it was completely unsourced. Spot-checking showed that perhaps half of the linked articles did not contain sources... and there was no way to tell by looking at them which did. So I tagged them all as needing citations, and put in perhaps three or four hours' work on citing them. Another user jumped in and got practically all of them sourced. The problem is, perhaps a quarter of them were sourced to NNDB, and as discussion with others confirmed, NNDB is not even close to being a reliable source.

Now, in a situation like this, I had a problem. I raised the issue on the talk page, and the editor, who had probably put in ten or twenty times the work I had put in, understandably responded with pique. The talk page isn't a very good venue for resolving such issues, because while the talk goes on, the poorly sourced items remain in the article. What could I do? Set an arbitrary deadline, then remove all the poorly sourced articles? That felt unreasonably hostile to me. Source them all myself quickly? No, I'm willing to work on sourcing them but not willing to make it my top priority.

But, this is a page about (mostly) living people. Some of whom might conceivably object to being called bisexuals. Some, perhaps, strenuously. This is a case where it is really not appropriate to shrug the problem off.

The beauty of the ordinary "citation needed" tag is that once it's there, there's no rush. The reader is warned, other editors are informed, and the statement can now remain there without revert wars until someone has the time to source it. Applying the tag addresses the problem without being unnecessarily confrontational. It says "something needs to be done when somebody gets around to it, and in the meantime readers need to know that there's a problem.

Well, exactly the same thing is true of this tag. You can mark something and move on. You don't have to impose deadlines on yourself or anyone else. It's a very workable compromise between leaving a badly sourced item in place and removing it.

If you think the wording is too obtrusive, I wouldn't in the least object to changes in the wording. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I am sympathetic to the situation described by Dpbsmith, but this is a typographic travesty. If it were reasonably innocuous, I might be tempted to reconsider, although I'm not crazy about the idea of a half-dozen citation templates which only differ in nuance. If the problem wasn't with specific citations but the source, then couldn't a note or hidden comment be added in the reference listing, rather than to each citation on the page, anyway? —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 00:00 Z

Neutral. If this template were used differently -- if it were used only for citations formatted as footnotes or references, and if it were placed in the footnote/reference itself, so that it wouldn't be noticed by the reader unless the reader was already looking at the footnote/reference -- I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it's being used in List of bisexual people, where it appears in the body of the article itself, I agree that it's too disruptive. Kickaha Ota 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't being used there any more, as the very energetic editor who added the NNDB sources has now replaced every instance of the template with a non-NNDB source. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying that it be placed within the footnote seems perfectly reasonable to me, if that makes any difference to anyone. Alternatively, would a much shorter piece of text, such as, say, a red question mark within square brackets, make any difference in the template's acceptability? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of using a template marker of some kind in the footnote text itself. Less disruptive. (Same great taste, less filling.) "Better" may also be a poor choice of adjective, although linking straight to the WP:RS guideline seemed to be a good enough clarification to me. Anville 16:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Better" is a matter of opinion. This could be used to push a POV in cases where someone doesn't like a particular reliable source for whatever reason. -/- Warren 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be too easily abused. Sophy's Duckling 08:21, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Saturn V infobox

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Infobox rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no real article pages appear to use it, and even the Saturn V page uses the rocket Infobox. Mark Grant 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be used on only the Saturn V page anyway. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Swift 11:45, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Other Nevada Stations

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a subset of {{Las Vegas TV}} and {{Reno TV}}. All stations are listed in the other two templates. Vegaswikian 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 08:22, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Annandale on the Web

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Contains only a single web link and thus there is no need for a template. BigDT 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -/- Warren 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sophysduckling (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 August 2006.
Delete. --Swift 11:37, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Http://thewb.warnerbros.com/web/show episode.jsp?id=SP217

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Goldom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Http://thewb.warnerbros.com/web/show episode.jsp?id=SP217 (please note, {{lt}} doesn't work with this mis-named template)

Template containing only the URL for which it is named. I have replaced its use in Agent Cody Banks with the URL itself. I can't imagine a good use for a template here and I can only presume it was created by mistake. BigDT 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mistakenly created. Neil916 (Talk) 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up for a speedy delete, since.. I don't think we'll have to wait a week to discuss this, WP:SNOWBALL and all that. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that was fast. It got deleted. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 17 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:AOTS

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the??? BigDT 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to put a speedy tag on this when I came across User talk:Attackoftheshow#Jimbo says "No, really, it's okay". It seems Jimbo Wales went on the TV show Attack of the Show to demo Wikipedia, and this is likely left over from that. That demo is long since over, and nothing even uses the template, so it's probably safe to delete. It seems to have been a boilerplate for User:Attackoftheshow. Speedy delete as house keeping. I just thought I'd shed a little light on this bizarre template. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? Sophy's Duckling 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ned Scott puts great light into this. The template's content appears to already exist in its zany form at User:Attackoftheshow, so this is leftover. Rather humerous though! Kevin_b_er 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Swift 11:36, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:User Confusingbx

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox says, "AHH! Stupid Userboxes!" It is referenced only on a talk page and in two mass lists of userboxes (ie, nobody is actually wanting to use it on their userpage.) BigDT 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete it. I feel that way about the userboxes myself. They're so damn hard to organize and they keep getting deleted, which makes it worse. Sophy's Duckling 08:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userify per WP:GUS. Gimmetrow 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or GUS. --Swift 11:34, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Nobel medal

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather bizarrely being used contrary to WP:MOS WP:LEAD at the start of articles, (e.g. Bertrand Russell). We do not need this template anyway, firstly because it can be inserted if necessary per normal [[image:foo.jpg]] markup, and unnecessarily wastes server resources. Secondly, its inclusion in articles adds nothing to the article, which already necessarily states in prose that that subject is a Nobelist. — Dunc|☺ 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Durin 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves almost no informational purpose (even if you do happen to recognize the Nobel Medal—which I doubt most people will—it cannot tell you as much as a single sentence can, i.e. "Nobel Prize in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect"), has an ambiguous copyright status, and is just bad form anyway. --Fastfission 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Comment. The image has been taken care of. --Kjoonlee 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)~~ --Kjoonlee 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yuck :/ —Ruud 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daft, no purpose. Stevecull 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Fastfission. Vsmith 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
- It's informative and visually pleasing.
- It's easy to change the medal image with templates, rather than with manual inclusion.
- Everything can be a waste on server resources, since "unnecessary" is an arbitrary measure.
- If you disagree with its use at the lead, what do you suggest, besides deletion?
- As is quoted in the MOS, "Rules and regulations [..] must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." Just because it isn't mentioned in the MOS doesn't mean it's forbidden. --Kjoonlee 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 23:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing there now that copyvio image has been removed. Neil916 (Talk) 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete since image is now removed. --Kjoonlee 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Monk 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template appears to be empty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sophysduckling (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 August 2006.
Delete per the "no need for overtemplatization" principle I adhere to. --Thunderhead 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an utterly pointless and hideously ugly way of indicating a Nobel Prize winner :) ed g2s • talk 15:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As ed_g2s puts it, its ugly. Also a nobel prize medal put into it (and ones that resemble it, but are still effectively intended to look like it) is against fair usecriteria. It can never be usable in such a manner because of fair use and copyright issues, and putting parameters would make it easier to just put the image inline in the first place. Kevin_b_er 03:39, 23 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:BrickfilmsLLC

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template specific to one articel which uses {{infobox Company}} code which could easily (and now is) being used in place of the template. I don't recall exact names, but I believe that such "single-use-single-entity" templates have been deleted before 68.39.174.238 05:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -/- Warren 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:35, 21 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Saban American Tokusatsu

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has become extremely out of date and is no longer at all necessary since Saban no longer produces such programming. Any suitable information within this template I had at one point included in Template:Power Rangers. Ryūlóng 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 08:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are still pages that include it. Once they have been updated to use something else, or the transclusions been removed, the template shouldn't be deleted. --Swift 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination JPG-GR 06:48, 4 September 2006 (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 page.