Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 12

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Millennium Development Goals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template doesn't seem to say whose goals, making it appear to be the POV of the creating editor. It's also been included in only loosely related articles, such as Income. The inclusion criteria are also unclear, and should be listed (under noinlcude) in the template, if any such criteria exist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: OK, I found whose goals it represents. It should still appear in the template, at least in the non-included section. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• The author and WikiProject International development have been informed, as that appears to be the closest related WikiProject. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was just going to note that Millennium Development Goals seems to be the owner of said goals. I would like to see a clarification of its inclusion on several pages in which the rationale isn't completely clear. Is it just placed in the article of every blue link in the template? — Scientizzle 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think deletion may still be approriate, as I cannot think of appropriate criteria for inclusion. But I'm willing to withdraw (or change my !vote to keep), if what I consider appropriate criteria are established. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are 8 aims of the United Nations to be achieved by 2015 and 2020. They are very significant and are something that is defining the policy of international donors, aid, charities and national foreign policies. The G8 nations have repeatedly discussed them. I created the template because there were some topics which are affected by or relevant to the MDGs which had no mention of them. I may have put the template on some pages it doesn't belong on, but I think it is something that shouldn't be deleted as it is one of the most important things in modern International development. It's relevance on some of the pages may need explaining - for example, it is on the page about women because there are several goals which relate specifically to women - but I contend it is relevant, and a simple way to follow the goals and their intended beneficiaries through the maze of wikipedia.Tkn20 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - clear utility and ideal use of the template namespace. Happy‑melon 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A complete description of the UN's development agenda does belong on Wikipedia somewhere, probably at international development, maybe on some UN-related page, but not on dozens of pages, and especially not in the form of a navbox, which makes it look like it's a Wikipedia agenda. It might be appropriate to add a once-sentence mention of the UN's goals specific to each subject on other pages, but not the whole agenda on each page. The agenda as a whole has very limited relevance to all but a couple of the pages it was placed on, and on those pages, a table or bulleted list should be used, not a navbox.--Father Goose (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  Oh, there it is, at Millenium Development Goals -- that's the right place for it, and the right format, a bulleted list. A link to that page is all that should be used, where needed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is very limited navigational value in going from trade to woman etc. Millenium Development Goals is the proper place to navigate from. For more core topics, mention their relation to MDG in prose for more contextual links. A template doesn't fix the "no mention" problem; prose does. –Pomte 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Little navigational value, the information should go in article[s], not a template. The entire set of goals only has relevance on one or two pages. ><RichardΩ612 10:10, 13 January 2008 (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 section.

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. Kralizec! (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Polish Navy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All template functionality is provided by WP:SHIPS template {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. This template was previously deprecated by WP:SHIPS, and is not really a candidate for redirect. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete deprecated and now orphaned. Maralia (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No longer needed and confuses new people. --Brad (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - hopefully this pesky, confusing bugger will be gone soon.</joke> Seriously, the nom and Brad have said all there is to say. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, {{Infobox Ship Example}} is already standard here. --MoRsE (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, already depreciated and is replaced by Infobox Ship Example. —dima/talk/ 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, deprecated and no longer in use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Deprecated. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as deprecated... SkierRMH (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (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 section.

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. Wizardman 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Online Manga Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Just a load of external links. — WOSlinker (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete link farm. –Pomte 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this is a linkfarm, not a navigational template. Maralia (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete linkfarm. Jonathan § 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All I can say is "ouch"! Happy‑melon 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete asap as one huge collection of SPAM. Since I can't read Japanese, I can't tell if its also links to a copyright infringing site or if it is a legitimate official site, but either way, totally unnecessary. ewwwww Collectonian (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a linkfarm. For the life of me, I can't figure out how this was intented to be used, especially with that format. (It looks like the links are all to an official site of Shueisha. Even so.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and take this with it to. --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it'd be rather hard, not to mention unfair, to get rid of that to the extent that it was unrecoverable, as it would require oversighting about 150 revisions, leaving him with precious little on his page from the last month or so :D. Happy‑melon 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, linkfarm. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as the above notes; farm of ext. links. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete per above; nasty linkfarm. SkierRMH (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (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 section.

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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Uuo infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems as if this is just an infobox. Templates aren't needed for infoboxes.. Jonathan § 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom Jonathan § 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Apostrophate nominator The template is linked to the page ununoctium and contains essential information.

Without trying to be pejorative, the nominator has absolutely no idea of the WP Elements project (which kind of takes care of all similar pages) and he clearly does not care about the guidlines there. He should also talk with those editors before hasting into irrational actions that lead pointlessly spending time on arguing. Nergaal (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any suggestions on that page. Jonathan § 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• and here is how I spent allready 15 30 min arguing my points unnecessarly to a user that once I finish explaining my points will probably make absoluteny no contributions to pages related to WP elements. Now:

1. out of the 7 element articles that are featured, 6 of them have separate template for infoboxes. Don't ask me why, because I did not contribute to those pages.
2. templates are not needed but certainly are not banned from being used. they ease the process of editing.
3. infoboxes in this specific case greatly ease the the editing speed.
4. templates decrease the chance of vandalizing of the carefully researched numbers that appear in infoboxes (because most of unregistered users do not access them regularly).

Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and replace with a fully filled out version of {{Elementbox}} unless reasons preventing this are presented. JPG-GR (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By deleting you mean not deleting, but replacing the content with a less cluttered one? just for your curiosity, this is actually what I was doing initially, when the other user bugged me out of nowhere, and instead of talking, started reverting my edits, which eventually lead to this situation.
    • anyways, I actually tried to do that, but a single {{Elementbox}} does not provide the flexibility I need. or at least I don't know how to use it. If anybody has the time and wants to do it, fine by me. But don't just delete the page and the information there.Nergaal (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose my question would be - with 118 elements, why do only 33 or so need their own infobox templates if the others function fine without them? It makes a lot more sense to make them all consistent, and to do so would be to utlize {{Elementbox}}. Either way, this template should be moved to {{Infobox ununoctium}} for consistency with the other templates. JPG-GR (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • agree with the move.Nergaal (talk)
  • Upon further investigation of WP:ELEMENTS, there does appear to be a movement toward this end. There wasn't really any discussion of it that I can find, but the project is still rather small. The switch to templates for the "code is intimidating" reason cited by Pomte below is a rather valid one, giving the complex nature of the infoboxes. I'm switching to keep.
• Keep convention. I'm not familiar with the work on articles about elements, but here are some advantages: Code is intimidating and out of the way of new users. Easier to test without affecting the actual article. Easier to maintain the infoboxes by themselves with Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Periodic table infobox templates. Instead of figuring out how to convert this, editors can be making positive changes that people can actually see. –Pomte 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Pomte. As well as large amounts of code being intimidating, it can also be hard to find the start of the actual article, even for experienced users. ><RichardΩ612
• Comment This template appears to be the filled in code of another template for a single use, is this correct? If it would be a single use, then I think it would be better to be contained fully within the Ununoctium article (like nearly all other infoboxes on WP) ... or simply make it a transcluded subpage, such as Ununoctium/info, or something similar (but as I'm unfamiliar with all WP standard practices, this second choice may not be an option). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 14 January 2008 (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 section.

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 Deleted per CSD T2 (misrepresent (c) policies) SkierRMH (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Copyright 2006, I.L. Holdridge. All rightsreserved. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pointless, given that copyrighted material is not allowed on Wikipedia, since it is not GFDL compliant. — Grutness...wha? 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not a typing aid. –Pomte 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no foreseeable use due to its content. Maralia (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Possible speedy delete candidate under WP:CSD#G1 or WP:CSD#T2. Happy‑melon 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Has about as much utility as a SCUBA suit in the desert, not GFDL compliant. ><RichardΩ612 10:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per criterion T2 (misrepresents policy). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom statement. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:56, 14 January 2008 (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 section.