Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] December 4
[edit] Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004
[edit] Template:Segaproj
Decision was delete
The result of the debate was delete </noinclude></noinclude> Martinp23 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Sega WikiProject has since been put under the CVG project and reduced to the Sega Work Group. I just orphaned the template, and it should be deleted as being obselete. --Hbdragon88 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as orphan. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. ><RichardΩ612 ER 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NYSRInt templates
Decision was delete all
The result of the debate was delete all Martinp23 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NYSRInt
Redundant to {{NYint}}. All usages replaced. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NYSRIntTop
Redundant to {{NYinttop}}. All usages replaced. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NYSRIntLegend
Redundant to {{NYintlegend}}. All usages replaced. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NYSRIntBottom
Redundant to {{NYintbtm}}. All usages replaced. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, deprecated template set. --tjstrf talk 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:QED
Decision was no consensus
The result of the debate was no consensus Martinp23 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-standard, idiosyncratic mish-mash of marginally related material. Original research. --linas 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The template's purpose is unclear, and it probably cannot be revised into a useful form. Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep See if the content can be revised first. —David618 t e 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Some stuff needs to be removed, but so what? Deletion isn't meant to be used as a sword to force people to do cleanup now. -Amarkov blahedits 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Its fundamentally misguided. No amount of cleanup can save this beast. There's a good reason for why this and dozens of other templates just like this have been deleted. Not to be rude, but have you actually computed a Feynmann diagram ever, even once in your life? If not, please don't vote. linas 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. One, you're not supporting your opinion, just stating it which is rather annoying. And two, computing a Feynmann diagram has no bearing on TfD discussions, even were it true that I haven't. -Amarkov blahedits 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think you're trying to pick a fight. Please don't. It raises everyones stress levels. These types of templates are categorically bad. This type of vote for nav-box templates has come up a number of times before in the physics and math communities and they have always gone down in flames (rightfully so). Its a waste of time to recap the issues, its been discussed ad nauseum; my nomination was meant to be a quickie, not an essay. You may ref the archives to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for the multiple discussions on this class of templates. And two: computing a Feynmann diagram has a high degree of bearing on this TfD. There are a lot of trolls in WP who have absolutely no idea of what they are taking about, and yet feel compelled to edit. That type of behaviour pattern drives away the good editors who actually know the subject matter. If you have no knowledge of quantum field theory, you should not be editing articles on quantum field theory. (Or voting on this TfD). linas 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. One, you're not supporting your opinion, just stating it which is rather annoying. And two, computing a Feynmann diagram has no bearing on TfD discussions, even were it true that I haven't. -Amarkov blahedits 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Its fundamentally misguided. No amount of cleanup can save this beast. There's a good reason for why this and dozens of other templates just like this have been deleted. Not to be rude, but have you actually computed a Feynmann diagram ever, even once in your life? If not, please don't vote. linas 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Amarkov.--HowardSF-U-T-C- 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, please. This is not just random clutter, but clutter of the worst kind. If you clean up the template by removing each link that is acutely unhelpful, an empty template is left. --LambiamTalk 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um... no you don't. You get the particles, and two or three about the quantum framework. That's short, but it isn't empty. -Amarkov blahedits 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Which are the articles about the "quantum framework"? Which are the articles that are essential to QED, and which are peripheral? I think more than "it can be fixed" is needed from people voting to keep; these people also need to provide specific proposals on how to rewrite this template so that it is useful. Otherwise, this discussion will be repeated in another few months when someone else finds this template, sees that it is a disorganized hodge-podge of topics, and nominates it for deletion again. Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um... no you don't. You get the particles, and two or three about the quantum framework. That's short, but it isn't empty. -Amarkov blahedits 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Better to have a page of "key topics in QED" (probably in the main QED article, if it's not there already) and another page of "important QED processes" for the Moller scattering and whatnot. We don't need this template on every article kind of related to QED. No offense to the template creator; just my opinion. HEL 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — This is enough outside of my field of physics that I've never heard of a handful of the things in the template, but I just wanted to say that I usually lean against these kinds of footer boxes for this kind of subject. Better to link to the appropriate concepts in the lead, or somewhere else obvious, where you can explain the relationship between the topics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)