Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 11

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Obsolete. Replaced by Template:Infobox Former Country. --Domino theory 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As the page is now, it's entirely unneeded. It's blank and has no relevant incoming links. Looks like its day is up. - grubber 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Its blank, no reason at all to keep it. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment Someone blanked it, I think its been moved in its entirety to the main Byzantine page instead of having the link like there used to be. Is it preferable to keep said infobox on main page or leaving it with its own page as it wss before?--Dryzen 19:25, 19 February 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Death date and age (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template uses a dynamic template to display unchanging content, since it is only used for people who have died. This appears to be a rather large waste of resources. The template can't even be substituted properly. --PhantomS 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Templates are appropriate to do math where the input will need to be updated. If you only need to do it once, then just calculate it and get it over with, don't use a template. -Amarkov moo! 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Amarkov. –mysid☎ 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Clarification request: Amarkov is no longer moving for "delete". Do you care to follow suit, or keep but explain your "delete" in your own words? Right now your !vote is kind of in limbo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Gurus listed here are well-known among community "members" and it is fully appropiate to keep it. --80.136.4.133 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This template compliments the Template:Birth date and age, and while it may be dynamically calculating static information, it is a very transparent method of ensuring the accuracy of the article (i.e. age and date are coupled via a standard ISO date format). It also provides proper formating and sizing. --Coolhandscot 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is making all birth and death dates formatted the same way important? -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The date is handled the same way in Wikipedia regardless of whether this template is used. In addition, the {{age}} template can be substituted in the age related part if accuracy is a concern. The "death date and age" template mostly seems to be an attempt to duplicate {{birth date and age}} without taking into account that living people still have their age change. In addition, this template doesn't even allow substitution because of the embedded {{age at date}} template. The only advantage that may be seen is that there is consistency between the ending having (age xx) and (aged xx), which, IMO, is a rather minor reason to have a wasteful template like this.--PhantomS 05:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Coolhandscot. Formatting, math control. How taxing on the resources is this specifically? MURGH ^disc. 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep - I fully endorse the comments of Coolhandscot and MURGH. Wikipedia is accessed via a computer, which will always do the maths better than any editor. Is Wikipedia so short of "resources"? As this proposed deletion has screwed up hundreds of "infoboxes" can it be resolved post haste. - Daemonic Kangaroo 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Age is a rather simple calculation to make. This template leads to the age being calculated regularly, which seems wasteful considering the age will never change. As for the TfD, as far as I know, it should last the regular week or so. --PhantomS 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a quick and easy way to provide death date and age. Why do the work when the computer can? --Faustus37 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This template actually requires more work, since the date can't simply be copied and pasted from the article. Instead, the formatting of the template has to be learned in order to enter both dates in a correct order. In addition, age is one of the simpler calculations and has numerous templates already available to calculate it. --PhantomS 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I strongly dislike this template as it adds an extra level of complexity to wiki markup without providing any additional functionality. Qwghlm 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can this be seen, in all honesty, as an inaccessible, complex device? It is in fact quite simple, and does have functionality, hence the debate. Could we agree that first-time editors and preschoolers might initially find it generally a little overhwelming to shape the contents of infoboxes —it should be mentioned somewhere here that this is an infobox tool. The difference is invisible to a viewer and detracts in no part from an editor's ability to code-copy the the article's other death date. MURGH ^disc. 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Qwghlm. Simplicity is an essential element of Wikipedia's openness to all potential contributors. CalJW 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Coolhandscot. Hopefully, if the decision is keep, PhantomS will go back and add the template back into all the articles from which he has already removed it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful template. -- Mattythewhite 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like an utterly pointless template to me. Its use in articles merely adds 11 characters of wasted space to the article size, but adds absolutely nothing. Using this template is like walking 100 yards to take an elevator down one floor, when the stairs are right in front of you. aLii 10:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I myself rather like to see age, then birth (and death) year(s). That is something that encyclopedia realy needs. --Milan Tešovic 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per User:Milant. mirageinred 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Different from living people whose ages keep changing, badly constructed to cannot be subst'd. Gene Nygaard 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Age of death is an important part of a biography article. 75pickup (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Two issues here. 1) Static information doesn't have to be calculated again and again. The argument that this template improves accuracy of the age is invalid because once the age is properly calculated, it will never change. I also agree that this wastes CPU cycles. 2) I've seen this used in one article where the deceased person was from South Korea. In that country, the person's age is 1 year older than what most western countries' aging system. See this article for more information. In most parts of Asia, a newly born person is already 1 year old. Searching around the English Wikipedia policies, there does not seem to be a policy that says a person's age must use an X or Y method. And also keep in mind that English Wikipedia is all about having articles written in English, and NOT to force westernized ideals like age calculations. Therefore, the age of the person should be decided according to the context of the person covered in the article. And I therefore believe this template to be invalid. Groink 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure that I entirely follow the logic here. If this template is invalid on the second grounds you state, this would mean that all age templates. e.g. {{birth date and age}} and {{age at date}} would need to be deleted because they calculate the age according to Western rules rather than according to the aging system used in East Asia. If there are problems using this template on articles about subjects from this particular part of the world, the remedy is simple - don't use the template. Taking your logic to its extreme, all references to age should be expunged from Wikipedia because they are calulated using the X method rather than the Y method. Daemonic Kangaroo 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I would do instead is add one additional parameter into {{birth date and age}} and {{age at date}} templates, such as 0=use western dating, 1=use asian dating, etc. But as far as the {{Death date and age}} template goes, I still would delete it on the grounds that calculating something static like this will forever and ever generate the same result. Groink 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per PhantomS et al. Surely having to enter all the appropriate parameters for this template takes more time than just calculating the age oneself? — Sasuke Sarutobi 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • After re-reading the discussion (notably Daemonic Kangaroo's comment), I have revised my vote to Keep, but deprecate. Instant deletion would affect the almost 200 pages that use this template. — Sasuke Sarutobi 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with rationale and more to the point some experimental results: This is in enough use that removing it would to take a lot of mopping up after. The first fixit task would be finding infobox templates and WikiProject templating instructions that refer to it, and changing those. Then fixing all the in-situ uses of it, then finally TfDing it again after it is no longer used anywhere. All that said, I think the CPU bandwidth concerns are a bit much, and don't give the engineers much credit. The one thing that computers do really, really well is math, at blinding speed. And I have direct evidence that WP is smarter than some here have been giving it credit for. It appears to cache these calculations. I just went to the template and fixed the "age" vs. "aged" typo, per someone else's comment up above. I reloaded the template four times, in case of database update delay or something (and have long since set my browser to actually reload a page when I say so, not pull it from local cache, or WP would be impossible to edit properly). The template results did not change in the example. I had to actually change one of the numbers in that calculation, i.e. make it a new calculation, in order for the change to show up. So it's doubly hard for me to believe that WP is being bogged down by this template. Lastly, I don't understand the "can't subst" concern. I just subst'd it successfully in my sandbox. Yes it still contains geeky math stuff, and is even harder to edit after the subst (and still worse if you do a subsequent subst on that), but, eh, I think that's a strong keep argument. The whole point of templates is to make things easier instead of harder, and a great many of them shouldn't be subst'd. Lastly, to echo a comment above, it's not like 1-day newbies are going to be using this. Anyone competent enough to install and fill out an infobox is also competent enough to read brief instructions and fill in some numbers in the correct order. And using this template isn't required anyway, so anyone who hates numbers and instructions can instantly opt-out. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. The template itself doesn't bother me, and the way it calculates the age for you is fantastic IMHO. What does bother me is having to re-enter the information as you add the template instead of just having a template that you can just add right next to the existing text. e.g. Date of death = [[January 1]], [[1901]] {{'template'}}. That would be even cooler and easier to use. --ChaChaFut 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Except AFAIK you can't do that in mediawiki software.

• Keep - I, for one, don't want to waste my time calculating how old someone was when he died. Yes, it isn't much work and fairly simple math but it's a waste of time to do, especially when you can have a template do it for you. We shouldn't concern ourselves with the software complications, etc. as that's the developers' job. You don't have to be a genius to figure out which parameter goes in which part of the template and if someone doesn't want to use it - they don't have to, they can still enter the date normally. The over-complication complaint should apply to the birth date and age template just as well as this one. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep the age of death is a major part of a biography and this template makes it more easy to calculate the age of death Kingjamie 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo. --Mark ^(Talk) 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Let machines do boring repetitious stuff. This could even be written to accept standard time texts, so you could write something like {{death date and age2|Feb 24|1993|Apr 12|1941}} Gimmetrow 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP This template should be kept. It saves time, and provides a consistent way to display an individuals age and date of death.ILuvTea 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Gimmetrow. Also; this VfD is very disruptive to infoboxes, and needs to be resolved ASAP. --CalPaterson 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful. - Cyrus XIII 14:13, 19 February 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is an ongoing argument about the notability of the whole self described 'Seduction Community'. Several people included in this template have already failed AFD, and none of them have passed with anything stronger than no consensus. More that that, there is no doubt that the boundaries of this 'community' are hopelessly vague that the template can never be more than someone's POV. Ben Aveling 08:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep. The boundaries are not vague, obviously only those who indentify with the seduction community would be included on it. And having this template aids to the navigation between the articles. Mathmo ^Talk 09:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even just by the title it's self you can tell that it's going to be inappropriate.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The notability of the seduction community is not in question, unless you ignore 20-30 different sources (please refer to the article). The notability of the articles in the template should be taken up on their respective pages. It's true that none of these article having passed AFD with anything stronger than no consensus, that is very misleading, because only PickUp 101 has even been nominated to the best of my knowledge. I have removed entries in the template where the article failed the AFD. Of the other articles, Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, Mystery, and Ross Jeffries are easily notable, Juggler (pick-up artist) is in the clear, and Lance Mason is marginally notable. Some of the articles listed on the template need improvement, but that is true of many templates because wikipedia is a work in progress. As for whether the "boundaries" of the community are vague, that's not exactly true. We have been taking a conservative approach with the template, such that everyone who is on it is widely considered to be influential in the community; in many cases, we have removed names inserted into the template when there was question of whether they were influential. If anyone has problems with the boundaries, then they should suggest on the talk page if (a) someone is included in the template who should be, or (b) someone isn't included in the template who should be. --SecondSight 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Gurus listet here are well-known among community members, therefore there is no reason to delete this list.--80.136.4.133 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been in 20 countries in the last 2 years. The seduction community (thanks to the Game) is followed everywhere I go - particularly the major players listed in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.153.128.66 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete any template that requires the POV qualifier "notable". CalJW 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the removal of the word notable from the template it did after all seem redundant to me. Weirdly enough it was added by people opposing this because they felt it was POV not to include it. Sigh, which way is which?!?! Meh. It should be, Template:Members of The Seduction Community or even what it was originally. That was fine. Either way, the mere wording of this template isn't a good enough reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Useful template on a set of important articles. Various businesses are paying for Google adsense advertizements on these terms in search engines. Wikipedia should be there to provide neutral information, and these articles (and the templates that organize them) are useful means to that end. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for for the problem with "notable"-- templates like this are additional sources of contention for an already contentious topic.DGG 06:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • At worse having the word notable there is merely redundant. Mathmo ^Talk 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If I say that I identify with 'the' seduction community, or 'a' seduction community, can I be on your list? And can I ask if you're a member of 'the' seduction community? Wouldn't want a COI, would we? CFTBL 11:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Struck stupid question. Mathmo is from NZ.
      • Yup, I'm from NZ. Good work Sherlock! Recomend coming over here, beautiful country. Though weirdly I don't see what me being in NZ had do with the price of fish. Ah well... whatever. Mathmo ^Talk 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is, does it eliminate you from being in the seduction community? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, was wondering who CFTBL is. Perhaps I should remind you having sock puppets is a very very bad idea. Anyway, at least that explains now why you crossed what you though was a "stupid" question just because I'm in NZ. Getting back to your question, the answer is no. Because there couldn't possibily be an article about whatever I might have done in seduction community. Mathmo ^Talk 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi DGG. I created this template a while ago. My criteria for inclusion at the time was any company/person that passed Wikipedia's notability criteria. Whether or not someone is part of the community is not really a contentious topic - I'm yet to see conflict arising from this template - if it does, perhaps /then/ would be a time to reconsider. WoodenBuddha 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per SecondSight, Mathmo, et al. Whilst there must be some modifier to prevent every proclaimed member of the seduction community from listing themselves, perhaps 'notable' isn't the appropriate name. Those listed within the template are known amongst the seduction community, so it seems that, at most, the wording of the title is contentious. Reason for modification, not delete, in my opinion. — Sasuke Sarutobi 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't see there being a potential problem of "every proclaimed member of the seduction community from listing themselves", too many people would be quick to remove them if there is even so much as a red link on the template. Remember, the template is there mainly for navigational purposes. As such there is little good in adding in every Tom, Dick, and Harry because we wouldn't be able to navigate to their page. Mathmo ^Talk 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I note that Lance Mason was redlinked until SecondSight (who does appear to self identify with the seduction community) changed it from [[Lance Mason]] to [[PickUp 101|Lance Mason]]. Pickup 101 is Lance Mason's company. Can you explain again what the contents of this template are supposed to be? Thanks, Ben Aveling 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Lance Mason probably isn't notable enough for an article of his own, but he is the figure-head of his company. I think you and others may have convinced me that the template doesn't quite have the right name, and I've been aware of this. Yet I wouldn't feel comfortable just deleting it without making another template to serve the same function. Ideally, we would have a template that mentions notable seduction gurus, companies, and terms. As for whether I "self-identify" with the seduction community, I mentioned on my userpage that I have participated in it. And so what? As I also state on my userpage, I am committed to having seduction community pages be compatible with wikipedia policy, as I interpret it (which is towards inclusion in general). In articles on feminism, should we cast doubt on editors who identify as feminists? In articles on physics, should we cast doubt on editors who identify as physicists? --SecondSight 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • • • lol, I'd hope not! Because I'm currently being the meditator for a couple of physics articles because I indentify with physicists. (having a degree in that and math, hence my username... have also taught both these subjects at University). Mathmo ^Talk 06:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • We don't have pages on every feminist, or every physicist, or every ettiqute school (which frankly, is all Mason's company is, an ettiqute school for men). Only the notable ones. We certainly don't have a template called "Notable ettiqute teachers". So it is beyond me why we would have a template called "Notable seduction 'gurus'" that includes a school but excludes the real seduction experts, for eg, Casanova and Errol Flynn. But perhaps community doesn't mean what I would expect it to mean? Questions for you: How many companies and individuals are there in this community? What are the boundaries? Is it world wide, or just San-Fran? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Casanova and Errol Flynn have never self indentified with the modern seduction community. As for if this is restricted to San Francisco... I'm a little worried that you should be thinking this for even a moment after all the attention you have been showing the wikipedia seduction community articles in trying to get them deleted. Have you been reading the articles, have you been looking through the sources they have been supplying? It would appear obviously not. I sugggest you read Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich, it makes a good point in the first paragraph where it says "Nominating articles for deletion can sometimes be a controversial action. Articles on notable authors, scientists, and artists have been nominated for deletion simply because the nominators hadn't heard of them and, more importantly, hadn't put in a little work to investigate the subject." Oh, and Lance Mason (and the others) are not running an "ettiqute school for men". There are some big differences, but I feel that if I tried to explain it to you where you are at the moment it would a be a waste of time. Lastly, there wouldn't be a problem if there is a template called "ettiqute teachers". There might well even already be something similar? It all depends on if somebody has gone along and made one. Mathmo ^Talk 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • This is my problem with this template and the so called seduction community articles in general. (This, plus the fact that they smell of COI spam). The seduction community isn't about seduction, and it isn't a community. It's just a specific set of schools, run by a specific group of men who used to live together (not that there's anything wrong with that) that claim to be able to teach men to be more attractive to the other sex (ie ettiqute). And there's nothing notable about that. They've had a few mentions in the popular press (who hasn't) and one of them has published a moderately well selling book. Perhaps we should rename the template to People mentioned in 'The Game'? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, there are a number of 'schools' within the seduction community, but they originate from the re-commercialisation of seduction, after the 'community' itself sprang up on the internet and in lairs around the world. The 'Project' houses were a later phenomenon, started by Mystery's Project Hollywood. And no, not all of them lived together. I kindly ask you to read up on the subject before you start making sweeping generalisations. [1] is a good place to start, as is 'The Game' itself. — Sasuke Sarutobi 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If the bricklayers of this tiny little walled garden want to prop up their idols, let 'em go to MySpace or wherever to do that. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Calton - thankyou for your continued interest in the community! I note that you've previously had a 3RR wrist-slap relating to this topic, as well as leaving a whole bunch of fairly 'acidic' comments on pages of people relating to it. Even your comment here suggests you may have a fairly strong emotional attachment to this topic. Perhaps you could explain some of your motivations, so that other readers will have some idea of where you're coming from? WoodenBuddha 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, purely on the basis that this is not a proper use of templates. A template is meant to be used for either calculating data or formatting of information, by passing to the template one or more pieces of data or information. This template in question does neither of these things, as the data in this template are purely static, and you don't feed anything to it. If you look at the code in this template, there are no parameters being passed to it. And, you should NEVER add static information to a template, as you would end up doing in this template every time a contributor finds a name to add to the list. It would be better to delete this template and instead switch to using the category option. On each of the names listed, add something like [[Category:Members of The Seduction Community]] to the article. Groink 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groink (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
  • As far as I can see, the purpose of this template is to provide navigability to the articles addressing figures in the seduction community. Beyond that, it also provides a synchronised version across all pages in which it is included. This means that, should a new figure become notable enough for an article, they can be added to the template, which will update across all pages. However, your Category idea is also a worthwhile idea. Perhaps something more along the lines of [[Category:Seduction Community]]? — Sasuke Sarutobi 12:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Seduction Community is *clearly* notable. Go and see the AfD pages related to it, where the arguments are clearly laid out. Every one of the articles linked to from the template *clearly* pass a notability test, and many of them have passed AfD votes (in some cases multiple times). The purpose of the template is navigation around the topic - these pages are the building blocks of what may one day become a number of articles on this topic - at the moment, they represent the best way to navigate the pages Wikipedia has on the Seduction Community - it's fully expected that someone will navigate through them sequentially. Almost every 'delete' on here even acknowledges that it's a knee-jerk reaction. As for the 'POV' argument - I don't see the ambiguity you're talking about here - does it exist? WoodenBuddha 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the Seduction Community is a notable cultural phenomenon, as is obvious from the scores of books, films, TV programs and web siteson the subject. Those against this article seem to find the subject matter objectionable, but that is no reason for removal. The notable template is a good collection of pointers to more information about the community. The only negative is that the listing (and the pages themselves) are often the target of linkspam. DutchSeduction 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for arguments stated by others. It also prevents monopoly by any one seduction community member. --Amit 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A navigation template usually links a number of very closely related articles. This functions like a navigation template, but the articles are only related in so far as the people work in the same field. There is not a comparable template for, say, "physicists". It is also a problem if the individual links in the template are determined by a "notability" criteria. This doesn't mean the Seduction Community isn't notable, or that the current articles aren't notable, it's that using "notability" as a criteria for a list is a recurring problem. There is not a template for "notable physicists". Rather there is Template:Nobel Prize in Physics using a specific, objective criteria. Notability as a criteria is implicit in categories like Category:Australian physicists, because the article would not exist otherwise. It would seem the solution here is to put a Category:Seduction community on any relevant article, and have Seduction Community the main article for the category. Finally, the template still seems a bit like a directory, and I think a category would better avoid that. Gimmetrow 18:19, 18 February 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:W2c (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only content is "To be deleted." --zenohockey 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

? Only content is "To be deleted."... means what?

Xpost to Nom, Obviously a KEEP

...if it stays nominated per below.

Hi! re: Tfd: W2c... This is part of the nascent Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing, and another two projects-1-, -2- across interwiki lines we've never quite dignified with a name or formal write up yet.

This macro is quite useful for refering to commons locations in documentation or templates that need work on all sisters, no matter which sister such is copied too. Such work is too time intensive as it is.

Unlike most sister projects the commons does NOT have an abbreviation which works on itself like [[W:whatever ]]. Ral315 discovered 'W2' is much the same nightmare, and for similar reasons, this one best not be messed with... not to mention all the templates it will break. No reason to create work. Suggest you unnominate it ASAP. Thanks. Best regards. // FrankB 05:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Someone explain what this does. Even looking at the previous markup, I do not get it. -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Try now--by looking at the proper form... Cumulative mistakes, starting with mine. I just changed the tfd to inline, as was busting things, and restored prior body, plus fixed up better. Needs another grooming pass, but just for better documentation and /doc page so changes in the evolving {{interwikitmp-grp}} don't ripple through tagged pages. Apologies, I should have kept the same form as the commons version, and since this version works fine HERE, never really visit it. The SITENAME test is crucial on the commons though. Glad you asked the question... I didn't realize I was defending the versions on the other sisters, but not the one here. The if(2) conditional can be rewritten this way, so did that too -- I just didn't know that back when I wrote it. Hard to keep which versions are what straight sometimes! Life would be soooo much simpler if all the sister's had a prefix that worked on their own sites!!! Is really bad the commons doesn't! Best regards // FrankB 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete You can't even tell what this template would actually do and where it would go, because of this I'm going to stick with delete.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question What does pipetrick mean? The macro seems to be doing something different, depending on which host, but a bit more documentation in laymans terms would be good. Or a reference to some documentation, even. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  See help:pipe trick. Picaroon 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and clarify that I mean to delete Template:W2 as soon as possible. Ral315 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this one too. It's inappropriate to call it the same as {{W2}}, because it isn't really, but it's the same general idea. Why is it necessary that we be able to have our templates use exactly the same markup as on sister projects? -Amarkov moo! 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I do not understand what it does either, but it clear to me that Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing should be allowed to sort it out. --Bduke 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have yet to see a member of the project describe, anywhere, why we need or should want these sort of templates on enwiki. Gavia immer 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Changed to neutral - I consider the following response to be a sufficient answer to my previous comment. Gavia immer 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER (I hope! <g>)

-- Sorry, don't follow the question.
A) Are you referring to things like Template:Commonscat1A (edit talk links history) which with it's brothers populates: 1, & 2, it's complimentary templates on the sister projects, which populate similar categories, or the links allowing people to locate maps, find pictures for articles and the like?

B) Or Template sharing using {{Interwikitmp-grp}}, which is for the under staffed other sister projects AND our productivity when we happen to go foreign,

C) or 'W2c' which is primarily used in both category text such as is very convienient to only type out and proof one version of, and get that right so it can be pasted in categories here and on the commons?

D) Or the overly complicated sisterlinks templates (see long list interwiki utility templates which use w2c (See example in: Music) and are the current Meta interlinqual preferred templates for tagging categories... only hardly used as are so combersome and prone to breakage.

Short answer, links are a good thing per WP:Btw, but making it easier to navigate to other Foundation sister projects just helps --unless you are really good at typing fast and can recall long url's-- most of us can't, and our customer/readers won't know it's there unless a link is given. 'A' and 'D' are two different approaches that will hopefully be supplanted some day by a system software change, that links via the interwiki's on a page and the user's browser 'lanugage preference' to the same article on their home space and same category on their home wikipedia, from the commons. The alternative possibility is Commonscat and Wikipediacat tags on the commons are used as a trigger in page processing like (Magic words, which are then used to modify the links into the vistor's language's links and pages.

From each of those non-English language sister's, their will have to be some kind of tagging equivilent to Commonscat1A providing the same kind of Magic word in the page-cache-processing and the whole 'SYSTEM' will need an auxillary database that maps interwiki's by our category systems (I'm including the commons's too, since it's English, and categories there differ a lot in some cases) and by English language article interwiki's back to the coresponding pages in the viewers home language. Those three places and their interwiki's are the key 'COMMON' points, three legs of a stool as it were, between the whole Wikimedia Foundation scope of projects... excluding Media-wiki, which is another animal entirely... it just makes the software changes possible.

So is it important for us here on en.wikipedia to get to the commons... yeah, much of the time... Is it good to get back and join the two catgory systems so that the system software can map and populate that database... yeah. Is it nice to have clear text on both sister's pages, especially such as would link to a gallery collection related to a category here or there? Yeah... some of us like pretty pictures. Check out Flowers for example, or the Atlas project on the commons.

So is w2c important? The better question to me is why the heck would anyone in their right mind want to take away a tool which is doing a valuable job when they know
A) Not having that tool will cost many man-hours (Alas, to others, in all likelihood) later to others for it's lack. Granted it's name sucks. (<G>)... If you can think of a better one, alias it with a redirect. It's used--A lot!
B) That someone will have to implement this decision, and will in all probability find there is no easy fix... there is no abbreviation like {W:, B:, Q, ... S:, M, V:} which work on Mediawiki sites... go check, then there is all the pipetricking to add as well.
C) Is your free time valuable? How about that who use the tool--it's used abroad on sister projects as well! Wikispecies has the same issue... for the same reasons apparently, it's also hosted by Mediawiki Commons server.

I forgot Template sharing... which is aimed at providing a minimal set of templates to sites populated mainly by specialists (biologists, lexicography specialists, librarians, etc.), not technically good with computerese, but who still have the same adminsistrative needs as are served here--and what techies they do attract, get drafted into sys-ops duties and don't have time for writing templates. {{interwikitmp-grp}} is a link system that will handle the execeptions (That name is 'busy' and does something different there), The unwanted (The sister's icon will be off, and no link displayed), the Name variant (remapped common name), and of course dead on matches. WP:TSP is also providing a common category scheme and so the links from the templates connect to ours, or to the categories, and back to their catgories. Hence whether we go there and contribute, or they visit here, or whether we or they go 'shopping for a new tool template because we have a need, all of us, even those oh those sister's who despise wikipedia (not uncommon--this kind of politics is one reason!) will have a common tie into the category system and lists of templates --which pretty much gives us a better start than reading 20 'verbose pages' for one nugget of information we need to finish and go back to our home wiki. Sigh! and Whew! Nice to finish, right?

If 'shopping' for something to do the task, part of TSP is to write up and catalog what we already have--others are already screening templates, adding usage to W:DPP, and in general, it all plays together. We'll probably be refering a fair number of duplicates here for attention, and some losers.

Hope that covers it for your question... it's all important one way and another. Usually to other people, so if you're the selfish uncaring type, you probably don't see any value in such things. If not, perhaps you can pitch in and help. One little help-- would be to keep this template around -- it's hard to replace without using inline {{#if:{{SITENAME}}... }}, and far smarter to have that test in one shared template. No one's asking YOU to use it, or remember it's name. But try {{w}} here, and realize all the other sister's 'W' says [[W:{{{1}}}}]] or usually [[W:{{{1}}}}|{{{1}}}]] just like {{tl}} just says [[Template:{{{1}}}]] . W2c is more of the same Smart thing. Where would we be with out it? Anyone care to list the NEXT 5,000? // FrankB 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - In simplest terms, this template creates a wiki-link to the Commons page indicated by the parameter(s) passed. If you call {{W2C|Frog}} it generates commons:Frog. However, it also has logic such that if this site were Wikimedia commons it would instead generate Frog. Since Wikipedia is never Commons that logic never gets used here. The reason this template exists is for cross-project template coordination... you can copy a template verbatim from one site to another and if that template uses W2C it will generate proper links in either project. The goal is to have consistent templates amongst all the projects so that you don't have to learn completely different template names and parameters for each project. With limited interwiki cooperation that might not be very important, but as more people work on multiple projects it would seem to have obvious advantages. I haven't seen any actual reasons for deleting stated - except that at the time it was nominated the template logic had been blanked. What is bad about this template that it should be deleted? --CBD 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for the time being, as it's part of a project in progress. I reckon, though, it ought to be renamed to something less cryptic, so it then indicates/reminds people what it does when they're examining code. {{Link to Commons}}, {{Link with Commons}}, {{Commons link}}...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:English football champions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pointless template. This information should be in a list, not a template cluttering up club articles. --Scottmsg 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WikiProject sentiment. One wonders, if they can just eliminate the links, then {{db-author}} it, since that is their sphere of interest. Such work shouldn't load onto admins! // FrankB 06:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Good football template, generally one to keep.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless navbox that doesn't need to exist - English football champions does a much better job, and most football club articles have too many navboxes as it is. Qwghlm 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Took a quick look at a selection of articles (3) from the template. One at only 2 templates, the other two had just one template. So it would seem the football club articles that this template could be on certainly don't already have too many templates on them. Mathmo ^Talk 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This info is already in a list of course, but the list is not appended to each relevant article. CalJW 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Qwghlm. HornetMike 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is just acting as a counter and is adding length to the already expanding articles. This information has it's own article, you can see on each clubs article the championships they have won. This is just over-the-top information. Not needed at all. Govvy 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Qwghlm. – Elisson • T • C • 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CalJW, it is small enough I see minimal damage adding it to articles. If it is causing "problems", then move it about to a better location in the article. Deletion isn't the way to go here. Mathmo ^Talk 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree as per nom. -- P199 16:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Qwghlm. aLii 10:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not a sensible categorization for navigation. Chris cheese whine 14:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Useless, per Qwghlm. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:22, 16 February 2007 (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.