Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11

[edit]

Template:Brookside Character

[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 debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brookside Character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphan template. {{Infobox soap character}} does the job. I suggest we delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (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:Reqphotoin

[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 debate was no consensus WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reqphotoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reqphotoin is redundant to {{Reqphoto}}, a better-designed template.— GregManninLB (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep - It's been used since time immemorial, is used all the time, and it's always better to keep templates that are easy for editors (including long-time editors) to remember, without adding stipulations for many additional parameters, characters that must be added, etc. Don't fix something that isn't broken. Badagnani (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are too many overlapping templates, confusing to new contributors. The reqphoto is more effective as it should encourage people to also add a subject/topic as well as location. Being in more than one request category increases the chance of having the request addressed.
  • Comment - The above unidentified editor seems not to realize that this template is used to specify from where a photo is required: for example: "reqphotoin|Michigan." This is not confusing. Badagnani (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry forgot to sign. I realize the use but sometimes a more specific description helps. BTW; I have lots of photographs of Michigan. :-) Traveler100 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Reqphoto}} may be used to specify from where a photo is required. "reqphoto|in=Michigan" is not confusing and reqphotoin|Michigan duplication what already is possible with the reqphoto template. Reqphotoin does not allow clear parameter expansion to an "of=" parameter or other photo request parameter not related to where a photo is required. Reqphoto allows parameter expansion beyond those related to where a photo is required. Keeping both reqphotoin and reqphoto increases the amount of effort needed to maintain the coding on the photo request templates. GregManninLB (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reqphoto is transcluded onto 35,000+ pages whereas reqphotoin is transcluded onto 3,000+ pages. The syntax for reqphoto would be reqphoto|in=Canada to provide the grammar "Request photo in Canada". While reqphotoin may have had value, it cannot be expanded without confusion to parameters not related to "in" whereas reqphoto can be expanded. GregManninLB (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that a bot appears to have been changing reqphotoin to reqphoto, see [1], which is probably why reqphoto is transcluded onto more articles than reqphotoin; look through the bot's history and you see more than 1000 reqphotoin have been changed to reqphoto. Black Tusk 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{reqphoto|in={{{1}}}|in2={{{2}}}}}, or delete after robot does the migration. Note that the in parameter in reqphoto has been introduced after reqphotoin was widely used. --Qyd (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very useful for identofying places which need photographs which is very important to this encyclopedia ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. More grammatically correct.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (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:Republic of China politics sidebar

[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 debate was delete Redundant. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Template:Republic of China politics. — Jerrch 16:37, 11 May 2008 (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:Fertility awareness

[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 debate was delete. Will replace instances with menstrual cycle WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fertility awareness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating for deletion: this template does not satisfy WP:NPOV and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement. Authoritative sources such as the World Health Organization ([2] see the third page, although it is labeled "Page 1") and the publication Contraceptive Technology [3] (which is considered "The most authoritative source... for comparing the effectiveness of various methods of birth control" [4]) classify calendar-based methods as types of fertility awareness. This template is being used to push the POV that calendar-based methods are not fertility awareness. LyrlTalk C 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is is problematic to state either way regarding the rhythm method. But I'm not sure that means we need to delete the template. But then again, how could we make a template that doesn't say the rhythm method is FA on the one hand, while saying it is on the other? Maybe create a column saying "disputed methods"? Or maybe we need a more broad template like "natural birth control" which would cover more than just FA? Hmm... if people like the idea of changing the scope of the template, I'd support a renaming and reworking (which is basically a vote for delete, in a manner of speaking).-Andrew c [talk] 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO and CT are simply misusing the term. They describe the rhythm method as a "fertility-awareness-based method", yet the fertility awareness methods were developed decades after the rhythm method! How can the rhythm method be "based" in fertility awareness if rhythm came first? I don't see how the rhythm method can be considered a form of "fertility awareness" when there is no actual "awareness", just guessing. Whistling42 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is all fine and dandy as a personal opinion. However, everyone knows that anyone can edit wikipedia. We have to assume that a reliable, verifiable source (in this case the leading world health body, the WHO), knows more than some anonymous person on the internet. Per NPOV, we can't ignore notable views and take sides on an issue. Saying one way or the other would be taking sides, so we'll need to come up with a solution that skirts that issue, or otherwise makes it clear that there are multiple valid views on the topic. I see no grounding in policy to make a judgement call to ignore the WHO (or CT), but I could be missing something. -Andrew c [talk] 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Template:Menstrual cycle may serve the same function as this template (assisting navigation between these articles) without the inherent POV of a "fertility awareness" category that includes or excludes the calendar-based methods. LyrlTalk C 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to POV issues, and as more or less redundant to Template:Menstrual cycle above, which contains most of the same links but without the controversy. Terraxos (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (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:Sin

[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 debate was delete. 2 of the temps have been userfied already. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This nomination also includes Template:Cos and Template:DegreeToRadian

I have to admit that the unit circle example in the documentation is pretty cool, but this template is ultimately not used and not very useful. I mean, when are we going to have to calculate the sine of a number on demand in the process of building an encyclopedia? And if we ever need to, we already have {{#expr:sin(x)}}. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to {{#expr:sin(x)}}. asenine say what? 10:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No, I haven't thought of a use for the trig functions and now that they are available using {{#expr:}} there is no need to keep these templates (except to marvel at the code). If conversions from degrees to radians is needed, it could be added to {{convert}}. JIMp talk·cont 00:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't really matter that they are "redundant" - they are shorthand versions of the longer #expr forms. --- RockMFR 03:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unlikely that anyone will ever need them and it's easier to combine #expr forms together anyway when you don't go through another template. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It truely is unlikely that these will get a lot of use. One may think one is making a saving by using shorthand versions but I've just tested {{sin}} in WT:SAND and found the following.
{{sin|30}}
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 6/1000000
Post-expand include size: 30/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 2/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500

verses
 
{{#expr:sin30}}
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 2/1000000
Post-expand include size: 17/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 0/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
      • Triple the preprocessor node count, almost double the post-expand include size and a non-zero template argument size. Save a little typing, make the page a little slower to load ... or a lot slower if used repeatedly (in another template for example). Shortcuts aren't always good. They can encourage bad coding and make WP a more confusing place. JIMp talk·cont 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, but support deprecation. This way, the template (which, indeed, is now redundant to #expr:sin(x)) is not going to be used from now on, but it is still going to be available in case any of the old diffs utilize it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That argument could be applied to just about any template here. As for these ones, though, I doubt that there are any old diffs using them, they're just not all that useful. JIMp talk·cont 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is valid. I do however seem to remember this template being used in articles at one point. I don't have any examples off the top of my head though... JoshuaZ (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I doubt that there are many then. JIMp talk·cont 04:08, 13 May 2008 (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:Coat of arms of Africa

[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 debate was keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coat of arms of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant of {{Africa topic}}. — -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not redundant. Its very much in use. Mangwanani (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (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:GFDL image description

[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 debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL image description (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused license template, redundant to {{GFDL}}. — Kelly hi! 03:04, 11 May 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11&oldid=1141484829"