Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Used only on an image to give contact details, I have subst:'ed this and I doubt whether it will be used on anything else, so it should go. It also has an issue regarding spambots harvesting e-mail addresses. RichardΩ6 12 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete or userfy on request if the user prefers to substitute this rather than copy and paste it every time, though it's probably best left to their userpage. –Pomte 01:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Userfy if requested & delete. SkierRMH (talk) 00:15, 3 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No transclusions and I am unsure how this would be used or what use it would have. RichardΩ6 12 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Possibly some stylized use on a userpage/talkpage, but certainly no encyclopedic-use. Only edit of the creator. JPG-GR (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Userfy for User:Crayfishaxe as they evidently like it and may use it on their userpages. –Pomte 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Talktext

Delete - this quacks like a social networking template. MER-C 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks as social networky as a barnstar as those holiday cards people are sending around. The plain style doesn't affect the content, and the template can be used to send a serious message. –Pomte 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That's perfectly true, but barnstars are used to reward editors for their hard work, not just for messages. I haven't seen any of the holiday/New Year messages stored in Template: space, if I do I will most likely be tempted to TfD those as social network templates as well! ><RichardΩ6 12 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as having no serious use: images and content like this are prohibited from signatures. No aversion to userfying if requested. Happy‑melon 21:27, 4 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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sports league already exists so no reason for an extra infobox with practically the same use. --Howard the Duck 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The two templates have many different parameters and the tournament one is widely used. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: All of the parameters are the same except for "most successful club" which will be added soon. and a simple edit can change it to "Template:Infobox Sports league" because they absolutely have the same parameters. --Howard the Duck 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per User:Richard0612. – Pee Jay 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. Sunder land 06 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now but recommend a merge and consolidation of the two. Qwghlm (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I could even volunteer to change the infoboxes for the 31 articles that'll be affected. --Howard the Duck 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep with the suggestion to revise this template in order to remove superfluous fields (I don't really understand the usefulness of having a link to the list of broadcasters inside the infobox, for instance). --Angelo (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: I can just redirect this to Template:Infobox Sports league and there'll be no collateral damage. That's how redundant this template is. --Howard the Duck 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the point is not the overlap in fields; it's the semantic difference between the covered areas. A tournament is not necessarily a league, and the former template is (imo) over-reaching (this TfD would indicate that you see it as applicable to all team sport tournaments). Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If we'll follow this "semantic" argument, then we'll have thousands of templates of basically the same thing; for example, I can create a Template:Infobox American soccer player when Template:Football player infobox can do what American soccer player can do. To further emphasize that this template is not even needed, see FIFA World Cup... guess what template it uses? This template isn't only for "sports leagues", but for sporting competitions that has teams in general. Other sport/tournaments that are intrinsically different, such as cricket, auto racing and sports leagues in which individuals are more prominent may have different infoboxes (they currently do), but for sports such as football and any sporting event that employs teams, it's important to use only one infobox. --Howard the Duck 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  - American soccer players and generic football players differ only in that certain regions and events are fixed; the templates in discussion differ considerably in pertinent attributes. The World Cup article uses the league template for the sole reason that it hasn't been converted yet. Again, I'd question why it is "important" to have a super-template for a disparate collection of sports where there are obviously large semantic differences (in context: the World Cup's "league" aspect consists of only three games in the preliminary phase of the tournament proper). Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Actually, the "knockout stage" is prominently used in several other leagues, especially in North America. They call it the "playoffs". The "league" you're referring to may be the "league" competitions, not the "cup" competitions which more closely resemble the playoffs of North America. The "league" refers to the association of several competing teams.
    - Also, it's rather important to have a universal template on these sports leagues; for example, I know nothing about cricket so the infobox used on Cricket World Cup is unintelligible. Now if basketball, soccer, American football, rugby union, volleyball, cricket and other leagues had the same universal infobox you can readily compare information universal to all of sport - inaugural season, number of teams, latest champion, and the like, not the person who made the most runs and wickets, whatever those are. --Howard the Duck 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Not to mention, several other sports use the Infobox Sports league just fine, I don't get the reason why soccer should have it's own when other sports use just one. --Howard the Duck 13:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Ah, but is there any point in being able to directly compare results across entirely different sports? So much so that we should merge all the attributes that might apply to individual sports into one super-template? I don't believe there is. As I said earlier, I believe the current attribute overlap is more due to the newness of the template than because there's so much common data that the specialist templates are redundant.
      - I believe that your professed lack of comprehension of the cricket infobox is an indication that there should be different templates. {{taxobox}} and {{chembox}} are separate because they cover sufficiently different domains that their shared attributes are few and far between, while their most interesting attributes are domain-specific. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        Actually, there is a point in directly comparing sports... we have article such as List of sports attendance figures and sports rivalry. As for taxobox and chembox, they're two different realms of science, and frankly, an article about an animal using a chembox would seem rather out-of-place, or should I say incompatible. You can't directly compare a goat and a gold nugget; however you can compare cricket and baseball, basketball and soccer as you can compare city and county -- that's why we have {{Infobox settlement}}, a super-template for all human "settlements".
        
        Also, this template is relatively new, and since no harm will be done if this is redirected, we might as well redirect it since it has identical parameters unless someone gets industrious enough to bypass it. There's no point in having different templates when they have the same parameters; heck they even look identical.
        
        And isn't the point of templates is to use them for universally-connected articles, so all living things except humans use taxobox, non-living things the chembox, humans use an infobox according to their occupations, companies their own corporate box, sports leagues the Sports league infobox. If there's one thing keeping me from nominating the cricket infobox for deletion is that much of the cricket tournaments are done on a one-by-one basis (not via a tournament), especially since a match takes days to finish. For one-day tournaments with 3 or more teams competing that use a league table, then perhaps Infobox sports league can be used. --Howard the Duck 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        In future I might be swayed, but at the moment I don't feel that any of the sports infoboxen are mature enough for this kind of merge to take place. A larger merge proposal in future may result in the generic templates being adopted by all the sports projects, but I don't feel that individually nominating templates is a good idea right now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        Actually, it's better to stop creating more "specialized" templates for related subjects now since in the example of Infobox Settlement, it will take a very long time for migration to that template since there are LOTS of articles that use other templates. In the case of sports leagues, they're relatively fewer so it's easier to do infobox migration (you'd just have to redirect in this case, no collateral damage, Jack Bauer will be proud), plus the fact that the general template was created earlier than specialized ones so migration won't be a big problem. --Howard the Duck 12:34, 4 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

template not in use and its only purpose seems to produce a link to Seattle SuperSonics. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom, useless. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:29, 4 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 by User:Jj137 per WP:CSD#G2 as a test page. Non-admin closure. ><RichardΩ6 12 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this template was used for - some kind of sandbox perhaps? Anyway the creator of this template made this edit to Welsh Highland Railway which didn't contain exactly the same text. It's unused now and probably unusable. Graham87 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#G2, test page. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2 and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 19:47, 1 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The first three templates were orphaned as a result of mergers of the episode articles, which were no more then stubs with little new information then what was already on the "List of X episode" articles. {{Anime Ep Nav}} was actually used as a meta template for other two. The last one was replaced by {{Infobox Television episode}}'s nav feature and became redundant. --Farix (Talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom - now unneeded & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom - never really needed to begin with, but certainly not needed now since they aren't being used and the main tv episode box is a better option. Collectonian (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all for ditto. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Happy‑melon 21:30, 4 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 1

[edit] Template:Information(e-mail:jasimshimal@yahoo.com)

[edit] Template:Talktext

[edit] Template:Infobox football tournament

[edit] Template:NBA-sea

[edit] Template:For more information see WHR-public-enquirys

[edit] Episode nav templates

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search