Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 March 28 1.1 Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars 1.2 Template:Shortchronology 1.3 Template:How to go to Cerulean Cave 1.4 Template:DelSandheader 1.5 Extraneous shared user templates 1.6 Template:NJDOT 1.7 Template:Ugandan topics 1.8 Template:Discription

[edit] March 28

[edit] Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Largely redundant in view of the other, more expansive Roman Emperor templates in use. Besides, most of the emperors mentioned in this template already have dynasty-specific infoboxes inside the article, like the Julio-Claudians, the 4-Emperor-year and the Flavians. --Steerpike 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Suetonius's work is quite prominent and it makes a natural grouping. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is just that we already have too many templates and infoboxes running through each other for the Suetonius template to be useful anymore. There's already Template:Epochs_of_Roman_Emperors, Template:Roman Emperors, dynasty specific infoboxes like Template:Julio-Claudian dynasty, Template:Flavian dynasty, Template:Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty and succession boxes. --Steerpike 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with alternate suggestion - I agree that there are too many templates and infoboxes, but I see a redundancy in Template:Epochs_of_Roman_Emperors and Template:Roman Emperors which is not useful. The Suetonius template is useful in that it points to those emperors Suetonius wrote about and helps tie in his views of the dynasties. This is important in making a decision over how much of Suetonius is probably fact and how much is slander/tall tales/propaganda. On the other hand, Tacitus, Dio, Plutarch etc. have equal claims to importance. My suggestion would be to create a large template (much like Roman Emperors) of "Roman Emperor Biographies" with each biographer as a subcategory. Templates are useful in categorizing a topic according to common names in the academic community. Julio-Claudians is a very necessary category, but equally significant are the biographers. Suetonius, for instance, speaks often of the sexual deviance of the emperors. This, in some cases, appears to be slander, especially his claims concerning Augustus and new born babies. Tacitus has a very anti-imperial POV in the Annals and the Res Gestae is pure imperial propaganda. The template of Suetonius encourages a researcher to seek out that biographer's other works for better scrutiny of the original sources and to write a more advanced paper should they so desire. Legis Nuntius 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note - this template would appropriate for navigating sections in the emperors' articles about Suetonius' treatment of them, but such sections do not exist in all emperor articles. Gracenotes^T § 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from articles on emperors. I like Suetonius, but this template is redundant given Template:Roman Emperors. (As for the "natural grouping" argument, it's not obvious to me that Vespasian should be grouped with Julius Caesar and not with Trajan.) However, the template would be useful for articles on Suetonius' individual Lives, which are currently treated in sections of Lives of the Twelve Caesars, if those developed to the degree that they were split into separate articles. EALacey 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Shortchronology

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

This looks like an article - not anything that should be in template space. — bd2412 T 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into First Babylonian Dynasty... somehow. Gracenotes^T § 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but we don't redirect templates to main space, so the redirect would have to go. bd2412 T 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe we could merge their history? There aren't that many revisions on the template, so intermingling the revisions shouldn't be that hectic. Gracenotes^T § 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:How to go to Cerulean Cave

[edit] Template:DelSandheader

[edit] Extraneous shared user templates

About TFD's structure If the outcome for this discussion is keep or no consensus, then all templates will continue as they were If the outcome for this discussion is delete, then first all instances of the deleted templates will be replaced, and then they will be deleted. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the templates are worth keeping in the long run—and then implementing the solution. While the consensus should be enforced as soon as possible, there is no rush.

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

Taken care of by {{DynamicIP}}. -- Avi 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Taken care of by either {{ISP}} or {{SharedIP}}. Avi 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Taken care of by {{ISP}}. Avi 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cambridge IP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Taken care of by {{SharedIPEDU}}. Avi 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oxford IP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Taken care of by {{SharedIPEDU}}. — Avi 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are not many transclusions of {{Proxy}} or {{RotatingUserIP}}, and the Cambridge and Oxford templates appear to be... well, I won't say what I think they are. They can easily be replaced by {{SharedIPEDU}}. Delete those; however, redirect {{Ipowner}}, since it is transcluded on a large enough number of pages. Also if needed, merge content (but not prose). However, the alternative ones appear substantial enough. Gracenotes^T § 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep What if they aren't educational IPs, but owned by a given company? Or military? Or municipal? - Denny 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is what {{SharedIP}} is for. -- Avi 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Someone going to bot-replace all of these that get deleted? - Denny 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes... I've added a notice up top. This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of TFD. I don't think that any current template handles only military, or only municipal, and if they did, it would be not needed. Gracenotes^T § 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern raised above bt Gracenotes. Where there are only a few tens, I'll do it manually, and {{Ipowner}} will be redirected until such point as it is either manually or bot-replaced by {{ISP}}. -- Avi 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not all IPs belong to an ISP or an educational institution. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is what {{SharedIP}} is for. -- Avi 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per large number of transclusions and the fact that I might want to use one of these some day. Nardman1 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would you want to use one of them if there's another alternative that works just as well? For record-keeping things such as this, there's no reason to not have consistency. There aren't two AFD templates for nomination. Gracenotes^T § 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. –Pomte 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NJDOT

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

Not a free license. The New Jersey Department of Transportation permits copying, but not the creation or distribution of derivative works -- and they don't promise that anything is free of third-party copyright interests, either. —-Carnildo 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. At first glance, this does look valid, since creation or distribution of derivative works is not required by our policies. But the nom is right; it doesn't promise that there is no third-party copyright interest, just gives an assurance that the department itself allows free use. In fact, it explicitly states that there may be a copyright holder who will complain. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two ways in which we can use an image under Wikipedia: fair use, which has some fairly strict restrictions on what qualifies, or free content, which does require derivative works. This license template doesn't fit either category. --Carnildo 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but change template to reflect the disclaimer and the requirement for the exact source of the image. Nardman1 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to keep this if it is only going to be an un-free license. Images taken from the New Jersey Department of Transportation can be tagged with {{fairusein}} if they are needed and meet WP:FUC. --Iamunknown 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ugandan topics

Template:Ugandan topics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Uganda related topics are too numerous to warrant this template. What is the criteria for adding some articles, and omitting others? Importance? Who decides? Seems too subjective. — Ezeu 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I don't visit TfDs much, but since when was subjectivity a reason to delete a template I started? The categories it covers look fine to me. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy and subjectivity is reason enough. --Ezeu 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Template:Falkland Islands topics, Template:Brazil-related topics, Template:Gibraltar topics, Template:Libyan topics, Template:Sudan topics, etc. As with everything in Wikipedia, editors decide on content by consensus. I find the nominator's arguments completely lacking. — Reinyday, 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep template, since it's like {{New York City}}, but only if we remove the "people" section, since that's not a "General topic", and the most notable people relating to Uganda should be listed in {{UgandaPresidents}}. Others may not need a nav template. Gracenotes^T § 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should merge {{UgandaPresidents}} with {{Ugandan topics}}. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Gracenotes^T § 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Discription