Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

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

Delete. IceKarmaॐ 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Talk sign

Template:Talk sign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete. Template just created this weekend that is duplicative of already existing {{tilde}} template. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (updated 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Redirect there. --Rory096 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~. Some people might use {{tilde}} and others may use {{Talk sign}} (personally I'd use talk sign - not because the template looks nicer - but because I still swap between pronouncing the symbol "Tilde" and "funny looking squiggly line" :P) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, {{talk sign}} was just recently created this weekend, so it's not by any means in common usage yet. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked the template's history (serves me right for being awake all the time). In that case, assuming there isn't a sudden explosion of people using it, I'm changing Redirect to Delete. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap (™) anyway, so it doesn't hurt anything. --Rory096 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Robwingfield ^(talk) 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unknown duplication of existing template. – Xolatron 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Useless template, no point in having around.Freddi e 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to {{tilde}}. The name "talk sign" makes a whole lot more sense than "tilde" for the title anyway, and so we might as well redirect it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox City Merge

Template:Infobox City Merge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
I created this template as a temporary workspace during the mergeing on Infobox City with Infobox U.S. City. That merger is now complete and this template is no longer needed harpchad 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete as is redundant and no longer needed (per nom/creator). TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But since you're the only one who edited the template, you can alternatively use {{db-author}} to speed up the process. Hbdragon88 21:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New York City infobox

Template:New York City infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template is unused. NYC article uses Infobox City. Only inclusion is a redirect from [New York City infobox], which is nominated for deletion here. harpchad 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as looks like a cut down version of the city infobox used on New York City. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per TheJC. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 06:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.MJCdetroit 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Slowmover 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 Keep Withdrawn by nominator. During the tfd a solution was proposed and accepted that changes how it works for the better. I don't think this tag can be used to "claim" articles indefinently any more, and that was my big concern. I hadn't thought of this solution before, nor had anyone else apparently (we'd been discussing this issue for a while on the template talk page). --W.marsh 13:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inuse

This is the "major edit - please don't edit this article" template. While I can understand why it was created, in my experience, looking at every article that uses it over a period of a month, it doesn't really serve any useful purpose and actually just encourages poor editting practices. I've yet to see it added to an article where there actually is a genuine chance of edit conflicts, e.g. breaking news, entertainment, sporting and political events in progress, etc. In fact it would be a bad idea there... in my experience sitting on those articles, the best course of action is to full protect it to fix major problems like corrupted formatting or a coordinated vandal attack, otherwise consensus is to just revert the bad and keep the good as best you can. Telling people not to edit is a bad idea... you loose good contributions and offend people. So when is this template used? Usually in basically good faith, when people are working hard on an article... but it's either articles they just created, or at most, articles that average an edit a day. Edit conflicts simply aren't a problem there. In the 0.1% chance someone actually gets one, it will be a situation where the conflict is easy to fix. This template though breeds a kind of feeling of ownership of articles, I've seen it again and again. When someone adds this template, they think they're the only person who can edit the article for days or even months, and if you remove the template, even if they hadn't editted the article in 3 weeks, how dare you remove their template from their article? And the template is very often just forgotten, and no major edit ever occurs. All of this discourages people from contributing to articles, because the template even tells them not to edit the article while the tag is up.

So to summarize this longest nomination ever, this template in theory has good uses, but in practice has no good uses... and just encourages poor, ownership-esque editting practices. It might be an oldie, but I don't think that justifies keeping it around. And I remind people that the template might sound okay in the kind of theory usually brought up on deletion pages... but in practice, you have to realize, it doesn't really do anything positive. --W.marsh 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep The inuse template is good because it lets people know if there is going to be changes anytime soon. If it's deleted, it will be a sad day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Solarz (talk • contribs)

Uh, a talk page can do that in a more productive and less intrusive way. I don't understand the need to say on the article that changes are supposedly coming, just make the changes. Also, that this template appears only means there's a chance a major edit will occur... often, nothing happens. --W.marsh 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep It has to be used cum grano salis but that doesn't reduce its usefulness. Don't blame the tool if it's used improperly. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, there are only good uses in theory. In practice... there doesn't really seem to be a good use for this template. --W.marsh 17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have recently used it on {{Infobox Journal}}. While the template was "in use" I completely rewrote the code, tested it with and without CSSs and went through *all* the articles which used the template's ISSN parameter to change the invoking syntax. Given the number of articles, it took me almost three hours, and if someone had made a change during all this job it would have been a disaster. As you see, there are good uses. I'm here since January 2006 and I think I have used it twice, one of the two times being on the Giorgio Napolitano article which, at that time, was assaulted by editors from all over the world. The durations you mention (days or months) are simply unacceptable; that's just a bad use of the template. Again, blame the user, not the tool. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I've seen this used (and used it myself) to good effect on articles listed on WP:FAC and WP:PR, both prime examples of places where a large number of people see and work on an article that isn't being so prominently displayed as to make the template inappropriate. As someone who has experienced the frustration of edit-conflicting after a long and time consuming copyedit while working off one of those pages, and wishes to avoid such an event in the future, I'm a big fan of this template. --Robth^Talk 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. OK... I did write 3 paragraphs on why it should be kept, I copied my reasoning to the clipboard, pressed back and refreshed, and silly me copied crushing by elephant from the IRC channel's topic and lost all my reasoning (I think I can sum it up though)...

It should be kept as it aids in avoiding edit conflicts with other editors, especially when going through articles needing attention, articles that need to be wikified, etc.
It serves a different purpose to {{underconstruction}} - which in December TfD Template:Underconstruction was not deleted.
If I was someone browsing the encyclopedia and saw this template at the top of an article - possibly along with some others such as {{expert}}, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{categorize}}, {{POV}} - my first thought would be "OK, someones putting some effort into making this article (or webpage depending on how they percieve wikipedia pages) better. Do I want to read this article now or shall I come back in a bit to read it? If the page looks OK, I'd probably read it, but if there are other tags (e.g. expert, cleanup and POV) and I was after something well-balanced and easy to understand, I'd probably come back to it later.
{{inuse}} is primarily for editors who are solely editing an article for a while putting some effort into bettering (hope that's a word) it wheras {{underconstruction}} is more suited for collaborative editing (through the article's talk page, on IRC, etc)

TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, none of that really explains why this template is useful. People can edit an article all they want... edit conflicts are easilly dealt with if they do occur. This template simply doesn't help anyone improve an article. In practice this template is used to "mark" articles that people intend to improve, and that's it. It doesn't help them actually improve the article. And claiming articles is totally against WP:OWN. --W.marsh 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh, I have to disagree with you here, based on my experience. As I noted above, I have seen this template used exactly as it is intended to be. Furthermore, I checked Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Inuse and found only one inclusion on a content page, which was indeed being actively edited at the time; this would support the claim that, rather than being used to stake out or own pages, the Template is being briefly used and then removed once a major edit has finished. As for edit conflicts, they can actually be a serious nuisance to resolve if both editors are making appreciable changes to the article, and I see no reason to get rid of a tool that helps prevent their occurrence. --Robth^Talk 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason you didn't find any examples of it being misused was that I went through every article using it right before nominating. And I have been doing that weekly for a while... I always find several that haven't been touched in days... at first I found ones that hadn't been touched in months. Edit conflicts are annoying, but that's no justification for letting people stake claims on articles... especially when it wouldn't do much good on popular articles anyway. It's best to just learn to deal with edit conflicts. Like I say though, this template is almost always added to articles where the chance of an edit conflict is nonexistant... suggesting people want to announce that they're working on an article, which isn't what this template is about. --W.marsh 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you'd done that (and thanks for doing it). I still do believe the template is useful (if you're doing a block copyedit on an article and someone else starts doing a section by section copyedit, it's going to be a pain in the behind to integrate all the changes together when you hit save and get the conflict). So how about this: I (and any other supporters of the template who are willing) will run through the whatlinkshere once a day or so and remove it from any pages that aren't being actively edited, to take the burden off you and make sure this is being used properly; we can also, if people think it would help, put something to the effect of "if this template is in place but the article has not been edited in the past (hour/5 hours/whatever) feel free to remove it". --Robth^Talk 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of a message supporting removal after a sensible ammount of time, I absolutely had not thought of that. If that could actually be implimented, I would feel a lot better about this template. I also appreciate the offer of helping policing it (though I don't mind doing it once a week, and find that's a decent interval). The thing is though, I find the template itself as is encourages poor editting practices, like I've said, many people will add this thinking they can reserve articles for days or weeks on the basis of edits they may or may not ever make. But the new language could fix or at least improve that, quite possibly. My concern is that people would just add a parameter of a week in the future or so... it should be clear that this tag is just for one edit session. --W.marsh 23:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: in the included template, we have a small message saying "If this template is in place and the article has not been edited in the past [some fixed amount of time], it has probably been left up accidentally, and you should feel free to remove it." Then, on the nonincluded part of the template page, which people who are placing the template are more likely to read, we put something about how the template shouldn't be left in place for more time than it takes to do a single editing session, since that may unnecessarily discourage others from contributing. We could also put a similar note to the same effect on the WP:LOCK page. Do you think that would help? --Robth^Talk 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, in principal. How does two hours sound? Honestly that's the extreme limit of what I can buy one edit taking. Beyond that much time... people need to learn to work on an article with other editors, rather than try to hog it. If we can reach a solution and modify the template/instructions, I will withdraw this tfd provided no one objects. --W.marsh 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Two hours sounds about right to me. I'll go post some suggested text on the relevant talk pages. --Robth^Talk 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have used this template a fair bit (including when I was editing SpyAxe). I know WP:LOCK is a guideline and not policy, so If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place. confuses me. Anyway, I use this template when I edit an article that needs a lot of work done to it (more than a simple edit/copyedit). TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

To address your second point first, it's really not needed... I make huge revamps to articles occasionally but I don't see the point in telling other people not to edit while I'm doing it. If I get an edit conflict, I can compensate for it. That I got an edit conflict is usually a good thing... it means someone else was trying to improve the article too. This tag would mean we'd lose that contribution, quite possibly. Anyway I didn't realize this was part of a guideline, I will mention this tfd there and see what happens. I suppose this could be closed as an invalid tfd, but I'm not really sure. I don't know if I have the energy to fight an entire guideline :-) --W.marsh 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't really see offhand where consensus was established for WP:LOCK as a guideline. It just kind of appeared. --W.marsh 22:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I don't know. But I wouldn't have a problem if it was rephrased to seem less like ownership - as {{underconstruction}} does. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing my original vote from Strong Keep to Keep and Rephrase. My original 4 points are still my reasons for keeping it, however after reading the above I believe the wording could be changed. Something similar to User:TheJC/Inuse for example? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per TheJC. It is useful. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. I've used this template, but I've also made a pass and removed it from questionable pages where it was used to assert ownership. I tried to address this by adding the current subtype to the template to try and explain that it needs to be removed between editing sessions. Has this failed to work? In any case, I like the suggestion above re: invitation to remove. I wouldn't cry if the decision came down to delete though. -- cmh 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep with the new wording. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it has no useful value. I find this very useful in avoiding edit conflicts. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a very useful template, particularly in cases where edit conflicts are more difficult to deal with (for example, if an admin is reviewing a speedy deletion candidate and needs a minute to do an Alexa test). If it's on a page for a month, then take it off — deleting the template is a nonsensical solution. Tijuana Brass^E@ 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I use this when doing fiddly stucff like chagnine referencing styles where edit conflicts can totally stuff you up. Really, if being used wrong was a reason to delete the first thing to go would probably be the {{NPOV}} tag. - brenneman ^{L} 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 Keep. IceKarma ॐ 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gan-fail

Template:Gan-fail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Old template used as a starting sentence saying "this GA proposal has failed", I have never seen it used. Notification of GA failure has been super seeded by Template:FailedGA. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as long as no-one uses it, and Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations rephrases the "Please leave a reason on the article's talk page" part linking to the template. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I've never seen it used. I think it's from the time before notes were put at the top of pages to notify about such things, so they needed exact wording. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I believe that this is used (substed) at the bottom of a talk page in another section (hence the section heading) to provide the reason, but don't quote me on that, as I'm not really involved in GAs. Probably best to leave a note on the GA talk page. --Rory096 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. See instructions on WP:GAN. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I use it all the time and others do too. The reason you don't see it being used is because it is always substituted rather than transcluded. Its use is mandated on the good articles nominations page. Worldtraveller 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have NEVER used it. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but other people do, and the GA nominations page says it should be used. Worldtraveller 21:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete and replace with {{FailedGA}} -- Avi 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- FailedGA does something totally different - gan-fail is used because many people don't think a one-person review system should put a large 'failed' tag at the top of a talk page. Worldtraveller 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep What's to gain by deleting it? I'll use it if it gets kept.--SeizureDog 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've notified the existence of this TfD on the template's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced GA to recieve the views of those that look at GA nominations regularly/on occaision. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Since people are using it. It saves some typing, and is being used by substitution, so does not cause additional server load. Don't see a problem. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:FailedGA. Deleting it would cause problems with pages using it. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- As above, FailedGA is totally different. Redirecting would not make sense. Worldtraveller 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  - A second look revealed no pages using including it, though there are some which link to it. I suggest blanking it and replacing it with a message to use Template:FailedGA instead, which is sort of like a ~delete vote, with a good explanation in the deletion log and the talk page. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    - As I've explained above, this template is always substituted, so of course nothing links to it. FailedGA is NOT the same thing and it would make no sense at all to redirect. Please read the instructions at WP:GA/N for details on how this template is used. Worldtraveller 16:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per comment of Samsara. It is used as subst. Lincher 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also Keep as per comment of Samsara. Tarret 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 Delete. IceKarma ॐ 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonlance portal templates

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you have created all of them yourself, and cut-and paste moved them to new locations in the Portal: namespace (I only checked that for one of the pages), these can probably be speedied by tagging them with {{db-author}}. So delete or speedy delete. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as violates Wikipedia's image fair use policy. ddcc 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IKR

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mango juice^talk 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment All articles linked from this template (save for User:IKR1) have been deleted via {{prod}}. - Tangotango 15:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. IceKarma ॐ 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Romania in Eurovision

Template:Romania in Eurovision (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
individual articles for each year of Romania's (or any other country's) are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be one article for Romania in Eurovision Song Fest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be Romania's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Template could be improved. - Nick C (Review Me!) 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:HurricaneActive2

This template is no longer used; {{HurricaneActive}} has always been used; HurricaneActive2 is thus a duplicate (not an exact duplicate, but still a duplicate) of the now- more advanced (ParserFunctions are used) {{HurricaneActive}}. Not needed. Delete. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:43 UTC (2006-05-28)

Why not just redirect to HurricaneActive (and preserve the history)? Fl owerparty☀ 03:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.

Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. IceKarma ॐ 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PBSKids shows

Template:PBSKids shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This navigation template seems very US-centric. I suspect most of these shows are aired in many other countries, not just America - Sesame Street, for instance, has, according to its article, been shown in 120 countries. And it seems inappropriate to use this box on imported shows like Bob the Builder. The category, Category:PBS network shows (or a subcat?), should be more than enough. Fl owerparty☀ 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete and put all articles that aren't already into a suitable PBS category, per nom. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep PBSKids is a particular branding of PBS used in the US, in comparison iuts similar ot the "nbc primtime lineup" or somethign similar. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- So do PBS actually produce any of these shows? If so, would it be possible to narrow this template to only include those shows? I don't see why the Teletubbies should have this template, for instance, since that's made by the BBC - PBS means nothing to non-Americans like me. Otherwise, what's wrong with a simple category? Flowerparty☀ 16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  - If the template was slimmed down it probably wouldn't take so much space up on articles like Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (which is also placed in Category:ITV television programmes and Category:Children's television series). Personally, I don't see how a show not produced by PBS should have a big "PBS Kids Shows" template at the bottom, which is my reasoning for removing the template and just having a category. Sesame Street, Tots TV, Noddy, Bob the Builder, Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, Barney & Friends, and Teletubbies - possibly some others - are ones I'd have some trouble with being labelled with a big US-centric template purely because there isn't a "ITV children shows"/"BBC children shows"/"shows aired on CBeebies"/"shows aired on channel4"/etc template, and having a template for every TV station that a show has aired on would take up too much space browsing-wise - e.g. Sesame Street. Globally popular shows/cartoons shouldn't have any country-specific template (in my opinion) because if a show has been aired on multiple TV stations throughout the world it wouldn't look right to someone not from that country. I'd be happy, though, if all the cartoons/shows created by PBSkids had PBS/PBSkids in the See Also section, as well as being placed in a PBS category. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It has been shrunk. However, most of the shows on this list are produced for PBS, so in all but a few cases, it is relevant. Also, many readers don't use cats, and readers are our target audience. -- Zanimum 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per TheJC and Flowerparty. -- Slowmover 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete, a category is sufficient. —tregoweth (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep The reasons proposed for deletion make no sense.
- It's US-centric because PBS is the USA's public broadcasting service, and PBSKids its spinoff. Go ahead and create boxes for whatever they call the children's cable channels owned by the CBC and BBC if you like. I can assure you, however, that PBSKids is notable.
- Yes, some shows on the list are also shown in other countries. But the criterion for inclusion in the box is whether it's a PBS show. If you want to segregate foreign and domestically-produced shows, edit the template, do not delete it.
- Category:PBS network shows fulfills a different purpose. It lists shows broadcast by PBS. While some PBS shows are also on PBSKids, the two networks have many shows that are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they needs separate categories.
- Categories and templates are not mutually exclusive. Many templates have the handy feature of not only adding a link box to the bottom of the page, but also automatically adding the article to appropriate categories. Deleting the template not only removes the useful information on the page, but also removes the articles from the categories. --M @r ē ino 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well my apologies if this response doesn't make sense either :)

I'm glad you've made this argument, actually - I wondered why I hadn't upset any Americans. The point is that we're supposed to be an international encyclopedia, so creating Canadian/British counterparts would only make things worse - I just don't think we should be using navigation boxes that are only relevant to a portion of our audience. Presumably you wouldn't want Sesame Street's article to have 120 of these wretched boxes at the bottom?
I wouldn't know which ones to remove. I did ask on the template's talk page, prior to nominating it, if there was any way to trim it down. As yet, I haven't got a response there. At any rate, I think that if we removed all the shows that have ever been aired elsewhere, or all the imported shows, it would kind of defeat the point of the template.
Ok. Sounds like a good argument for creating Category:PBSKids network shows?
Very true, some templates do add the article to a category. This one doesn't. Fl owerparty☀ 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Prime Ministers of Canada

Template:Prime Ministers of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This is the former template used in List of Prime Ministers of Canada, no longer used, no article uses it, already duplicated in article itself. 64.180.26.229 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 28, 2006

[edit] Template:Talk sign

[edit] Template:Infobox City Merge

[edit] Template:New York City infobox

[edit] Template:Inuse

[edit] Template:Gan-fail

[edit] Dragonlance portal templates

[edit] Template:IKR

[edit] Template:Romania in Eurovision

[edit] Template:HurricaneActive2

[edit] Template:PBSKids shows

[edit] Template:Prime Ministers of Canada

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search