Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 4 January 6 >

Contents

[edit] January 5

[edit] Template:User USMC

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:User USMC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Should be userfied as only 1 person is using it which doesn't warrant being in main WP space.. -- ALLSTARecho 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: See Template:User USAF and Template:User USCG. This template is identical to those, just for a different branch of the military. -- kainaw™ 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 6 for the USCG template. As for the USAF template, it's got alot of users so it's fine. -- ALLSTARecho 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The logic appears to me to be: "Not enough people know about this template. Let's hide it where nobody can find it until more people start using it." I don't have any emotional ties to the template in any way. I just find the logic a bit odd. Of course, I also have an opinion about the ability of Marines to figure out how to use the template, but I won't mention it. -- kainaw™ 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been here 6 months... -- ALLSTARecho 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: After reviewing the history of edits on the template, I have decided that I see no reason for deleting the template. It is being used. It is not rare for templates to have very few users for a while and then become popular as users find out about them. Also, it will take a few years before the teenagers who currently love their userboxes become Marines. I do not use it because I don't use userboxes. I add myself to the category directly. All in all, it appears to me that the request for deletion is merely an attempt to hide User:Allstarecho's edit about gays in the military. That is not reason enough for me to agree to a deletion. -- kainaw™ 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not an attempt to hide anything. The history of the template is there for the world to see. WP:AGF much? I just don't feel that it being used on 1 user's page warrants it in any place other than user space.
  • Userfy per established precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep not in "main WP space"; not inherently divisive - no need to migrate; userboxes can be used by only 1 person - that's how they get started. –Pomte 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template was the unfortunate conduit for a proxy war, and as it has been restored to its original version, it is not divisive, inappropriate, or otherwise covered by WP:GUS. Horologium (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (userfy if necessary). The nominator doesn't like this template and doesn't like that his edit was reverted, but that's not a reason for deletion. Neither is having only a low number of users at present - in practice, templates that survive TfD often pick up more users because they have been publicized. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
My nomination has nothing to do with my like or dislike of the template. Look at my TfD history and you'll see my track record of nominating templates that are orphaned or not used by many people. Thanks for assuming good faith. -- ALLSTARecho 03:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree as again, this had nothing to do with Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez but in the interest of transparency I will have no problem with an admin withdrawing this nomination or closing it as no consensus but not as keep since that wouldn't be a true outcome of the discussion. -- ALLSTARecho 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to this template had everything to do with Sanchez, and the talk page of the template, your initial edit summary and this diff back up my contention. I agree with you (after reviewing your contribution history) that you nominate a lot of underpopulated templates for deletion, but your actions on this template (and the WP:POINTy nature of your edits) make deletion or userification of this template (which deletes it and recreates it elsewhere, eliminating its history) a bad idea while the RFAR is in progress. Horologium (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, thanks for the proof that in fact it had nothing to do with Sanchez. I left that comment about it on Benjiboi's talk page because he had raised an issue about it. As it states there, it had nothing to do with Matt. So thanks for the proof because I couldn't find it when I looked earlier. -- ALLSTARecho 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not going to buy that. You do a lot of work in templates, but NONE of your edits involved any military templates in any way, shape or form, until you edited that template, and then nominated it and its sister template for deletion. The vast majority of your template editing relates to your activities in WP:MISSISSIPPI, not general template tweaking. It's impossible to believe that you just happened to find one of the two USMC templates that Sanchez has on his page (which, BTW, was linked to other two other pages in all of Wikipedia, neither of whom you appear to have had any interaction previously), and just happened to edit it in a way to make a point against Sanchez, whose page you had just started editing. It's preposterous, your comment to Benjiboi notwithstanding. That diff was made after Lawrence Cohen left a note on the template's talk page about its relation to Sanchez, which leads me to believe that you may have been performing CYA. I have assumed good faith on your nomination, but your attempt to separate the edits from Sanchez is laughable. Horologium (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we shall agree to disagree. I know what and why I did something and you think you know what and why I did something, so there's no resolution in that. As I said, I've no problem with an admin withdrawing the nomination of this template, nor do I have a problem with this discussion being closed as No Consensus but closing it as Keep would be inaccurate since the discussion would be pre-maturely gone/closed without an actual consensus. -- ALLSTARecho 20:32, 8 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.

[edit] Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl

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!) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader covers the same purpose and may also be used for single games that are not bowls. I recommend deletion. If deleted, some bowl game articles would need to be converted to the other template. — Fbdave (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is for articles about the general bowl game. For instance, Orange Bowl (game), Chick-fil-A Bowl and Sugar Bowl. The template you referred to is for specific instances of that bowl (and also for single games as you mentioned), such as 2008 Orange Bowl, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl and 2008 Sugar Bowl. Each contains information that is relevant to the type of article is belongs on. For instance, you wouldn't have a field for Previous Stadiums on the 2007 Rose Bowl article and you wouldn't have a field for National Anthem on the Holiday Bowl article.↔NMajdan•talk 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep although it isn't being used on as many articles as you'd think it would be so what are all those articles using? Single bowl games aren't the same as a regular game just as a single bowl game isn't the same as the actual Bowl organization itself, ie: 2008 Sugar Bowl versus Sugar Bowl. -- ALLSTARecho 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Don't know what I was thinking in my "weak keep" vote above. Durrrrr. -- ALLSTARecho 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original purpose of the new Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader was to replace both Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl and the older SingleGameHeader template. I see no reason why CollegeFB Bowl should be kept now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Is there a bot or something that can replace all the usages of CollegeFB Bowl with the single-game header? There's a lot of older bowl articles that use CollegeFB Bowl. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's really not. Less than a dozen.↔NMajdan•talk 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur. A dozen to be exact are using this template based on the 'What links here' output. -- ALLSTARecho 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. That was the one concern I had. Glad it wasn't justified. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:03, 10 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.

[edit] Template:Infobox Heart Breaker

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 --  jj137 ♠ 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Heart Breaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Broken, unused, hard-coded instance of another infobox, no utility, possible speedy under WP:CSD#G1 as a test page. — Happy‑melon 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom, templates consisting of broken or hard-coded versions of other templates should get a CSD! ><RichardΩ612 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Give it a few weeks :D. Happy‑melon 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A filled-out infobox that transcludes itself. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Broken and unused. --Charitwo talk 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete unused & broken. SkierRMH (talk) 23:24, 5 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.

[edit] Template:Durban weatherbox

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 --  jj137 ♠ 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Durban weatherbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Unused, but it was a single use template. — MJCdetroit (talk) 04:20, 5 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.

[edit] Template:HighDefMediaComparison

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 substitute and delete. In order to avoid future GFDL violations. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

According to the template creator, avoid inconsistencies among the three relevant articles. However, it is currently only on Comparison of high definition optical disc formats, having been removed from Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD in late November. I argue for subst and delete since there's no point in a template being used on a single article. — Axem Titanium (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete single-use. –Pomte 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the template will very likely be placed back in to the respective articles (and in fact, the reason they were removed was because of an edit war OVER the template contents). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep until contents transferred to article. Don't delete it until that has actually happened. --Harumphy (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's precisely what "subst and delete" means. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for it has alot of detail in the technology mentioned and gives people a more definitive comparison. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying delete the content; I'm saying insert the content directly into the relevant article ("subst") and delete the template since it's only used once so the need to "avoid inconsistencies" is moot. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, clear utility, ideal content for template format, no reason to suspect it will not be implemented more in the future. Actually a very nice template. Happy‑melon 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is good information in the wrong place. This information belongs in 1 article, not 3 or more. Zojj (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see anything structurally wrong with it, although some data needs to be fixed. Algr (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying there's anything structurally wrong with it. I'm saying it's only used on one article so template format is not necessary to implement it. It can simply be inserted directly into the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I've added it back to the other two articles, as I noted, this was removed during an edit war over the templates contents. (It would appear someone who voted delete above has decided to remove the template again, despite the keep votes here). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if its not used in multiple articles anymore, it makes editing the article easier, as it is a very large table. --Ray andrew (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Zojj that there should be a comparison article that has this info in it, and all other articles (CH-DVD, HD-DVD, Versatile Multilayer Disc, and Blu-ray) should refer to it. I don't see the point in having the table in every one of those articles. Having said that, I have to admit I don't understand the harm in keeping it as a template even if it is only used on one page. Anyone care to educate me?—Mrand T-C 17:26, 8 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.

[edit] Template:Weight

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 Deprecate, and use {{convert}} instead. There is a case for simplifying {{convert}}, but this isn't the place for it (try the template talk page?) Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete. Unused and replaced by a superior {{convert}}. — MJCdetroit (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Not unused yet; needs to be replaced in, for instance, {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}}, {{Infobox Rugby biography}}, and {{NFL PlayerCoach}}. –Pomte 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert and delete - this is clearly deprecated by {{convert}}, but must not be deleted until all its uses have been converted. I'm slightly concerned as to how the nominator managed to decide it was "unused". Happy‑melon 11:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Happy‑melon 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Restored. Happy‑melon 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'm sorry. Something must have happened when I hit the 'what links here' button because there was only one link (someone's talk page) when I did it. I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise. Maybe we can vote to delete it anyway and then replace it with a bot. —MJCdetroit (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — A lot simpler to use than {{convert}}. SeveroTC 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Example: How do you figure? At its simplest:
{{convert|185|lb}}-->185 pounds (84 kg) and {{convert|185|lb|kg|abbr=on|lk=on}}--> 185 lb (84 kg). —MJCdetroit (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which are different! {{convert|50|kg|lb|abbr=on|lk=on}} (50 kg (110 lb)) is simple; {{convert|50|kg|lb|abbr=on|lk=on}} (50 kg (110 lb)) is complex. It may seem easy once you've spent some time looking at the templates but why make it more complex for editors who don't understand templates? SeveroTC 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Simpler involves a whole lot more than the number of characters in the code. A huge part of "simpler" is the learning curve to be able to use the template properly. There are thousands of Wikipedia editors who can learn to use {{Weight}} well. There are likely fewer than a hundred who would even attempt to learn how to use "convert" and most of them are already doing so. There are most likely no more that 10 editors who will ever learn to use convert well, knowing all of its intricacies. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - it has been removed from all templates, and I was expecting that to take care of almost all the instances. However the template is still used on no less than 4956 articles directly. While bot-assisted replacement would be possible, there simply is not enough upside to justify such a massive project. Happy‑melon 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Happy‑melon 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's not massive. I've got a bot that is doing it now and will be done tonight sometime. —MJCdetroit (talk)
Why are you doing it before the result of this TfD? SeveroTC 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I join Severo in expressing my strong objection to doing so before the completion of this TfD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert and then delete Deprecated by the much more versatile {{convert}}. JPG-GR (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert and delete, standardization on templates is pretty important to make it easier on editors (instead of forcing them to learn various templates with different parameter expectations). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert and delete; I also feel template standardization is important. TomTheHand (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment: All converted. All transclusions in the main space have been replaced by {{convert}}. —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There was no mandate for a hugely overcomplex, uncomprehensibile monster that can only be edited by exactly one Wikipedia editor, giving him complete control over future development.
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.