Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

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. — Malcolm (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purpose, this template is redundant to Template:Inuse. There are only two noticeable differences. First, this one replaces "undergoing a major edit for" with "undergoing a major edit until". Second, this one adds a signature and date stamp; however, this information is always available in the revision history. So, remove all transclusions (none of them are in the mainspace) and delete ... there is no reason to have two templates when one will suffice. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree better to have just the widely used one. DGG (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment could be merged... 70.55.87.43 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing to merge, really. The only real difference is the automated signature (which should be avoided on article pages) and the fact that the nominated template is bulkier. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom—the functions are essentially common to both Templates, and, as I understand current usage, Template:Inuse is standard. Concur with User:Black Falcon on keeping Template:Inuse. - B.C.Schmerker 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as completely redundant. - Koweja 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Commnent--I obviously wouldn't have adapted the one if I agreed. It's easier to estimate and tell a time based on UTC, than the weasel wording and syntax of inuse... which I use on occasion when and where appropriate. I sure hope no one editing herein is getting confused by a plain statement!!! More to the point, the 2 param allowed one a way to notify others of other things like--'cleaning up intro', "refactoring", etc. Cheers! // FrankB 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The UTC time is provided in the article's revision history. Moreover, {{inuse}} also allow specification of other things. Try something like: {{inuse|1 hour to rewrite the lead and format all references per [[Wikipedia:Citation templates]]}}. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 24 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated template. All transclusions eliminated and replaced with the universal template {{Infobox musical artist}} — Kudret abi 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this actually needs discussion. Deprecated templates like this can simply be tagged with a date once the transclusions are gone, as I understand it. But just in case, I'll say delete per nom. Xtifr _tälk 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment, recently, a bot (FMAFanBot (talk · contribs), owner is FMAFan1990 (talk · contribs)) that replaces all instances of this template and {{Infobox Guitarist}} with {{Infobox musical artist}}, has been approved for trial; it may not be wise to delete this template just yet. –sebi 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since correct automated replacement wasn't actually possible (the artist infobox requires setting a field that distinguishes singers from non-singers, a distinction that no bot could make), it's probably just as well that this was manually replaced before a broken-by-design bot could be unleashed. I don't know who is in charge on approving bots, but whoever they are, they clearly didn't check with any of the relevant wikiprojects first. Xtifr _tälk 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The bot in question seems to have been denied, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FMAFanBot.

Delete per nom. (Since the bot just intends to do what has already been done, to replace all transclusions of this template, and since the bot hasn't even been written yet, I don't think the bot request should impact this.) See precedence at TfDs for related templates Template:Infobox Bassist and Template:Infobox Drummer. --PEJL 05:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If this gets deleted now, it will encourage replacing the old code with Infobox Artist code faster. Maybe. Although bots are useful, they of course aren't as accurate as human editors. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, recommend standardizing a Template for audio-sample callup in Musical Artist Articles to replace a function in the deprecated 'plate. - B.C.Schmerker 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- This (among other matters) was discussed when the template was originally deprecated. The general feeling was that we already have perfectly good templates for audio samples, and that adding audio samples to this template was probably a mistake in the first place. Xtifr _tälk 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If all instances are gone, there’s no need for this template. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 08:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and others above. ZueJay (talk) 00:17, 21 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template isn't used anywhere. The first version of this template said 'This article has been edited so much, it is advised that is returns to its previous and/or original version.' This isn't a good substitute for article discussion. — Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The only thing contained within the template in an image. Utterly useless. --Farix (Talk) 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete—while using the GFDL for documents with a large number of modifications can be problematic, this isn't the way to deal with it ;) Gracenotes^T § 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unused. Dfrg.msc 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-used and seems to be a test page. Carlosguitar 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unused and unnecessary. - Koweja 12:38, 23 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both. 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject that used this template was absorbed as a task force under WP:VG, therefore this template and its duplicate are useless. — 十八 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unneeded any more. - Koweja 12:39, 23 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was snowball keep, early non-admin closure. Gracenotes^T § 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Speedy delete Divisive. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) }}

HI Andy, you obviously haven't taken the time to look into things. DGAF is anti-divisive. The philosophy is a live and let live based on apathy rather than a desire for world peace etc. :-) Moreover, these templates have been speedied before. yawn. Nothing to see here. Oppose deletion; Keep template.. Ling.Nut 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On visiting a user's talk page, to point out that they made a bad edit, I'm immediately told that they "DGAF" and will treat my comments "with apathy", and that's not divisive? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hey, the crusades were justified via Christianity. Same deal.. abuse of a term. Deal with this problem by dealing with your intemperate editor as an individual case of a problem editor, not as an outgrowth of DGAF. Later! -- Ling.Nut 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Not divisive, this isn't a political opinion or an inflammatory message or whatever else. This is the same as Template:User incl, etc. Melsaran (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. To the extent that people think that apathy about Wikipedia is bad, yes, this is divisive. But demanding that all editors have strong commitment to Wikipedia is silly. -Amarkov moo! 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- A recent Arbcom decision has just banned the nominator for a year, so unless someone else supports deletion, I'm not sure that there is a point in continuing this discussion. -Amarkov moo! 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment That just may qualify as the single most ironic event I've ever seen on Wikipedia! (I say WP:SNOW for this, if possible.) -- Ling.Nut 19:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I've had a stalker after me on here, get's me depressing and sad, but life goes on, don't give a fuck ^-^ help each other, love each other, happy days --Susume-eat 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This is a mantra that should be taught in schools. It would reduce the amount of heart attacks overnight. But seriously (forgive the pun) it's humour, does it need a reason to exist? WebHamster 00:03, 20 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. Mike Peel 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No longer used in any articles, and apparently superseded by {{Chinese}}. PC78 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Object to deletion. The several problems with the "Chinese" template were never fixed. Badagnani 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate please? What are the problems with {{Chinese}} that require fixing? And if these problems are significant, then why is this template no longer in use? PC78 06:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  - They're spelled out very clearly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). The user who created the "Chinese" template went around one night and imposed his template on hundreds of articles (in the process removing the "Chinesename" template) *before* these issues were resolved (they still have not been), which was wrong to do; these are serious issues representing serious drawbacks to the "Chinese" template as it currently stands, and they have not been corrected. Badagnani 07:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Fair enough then (neither of the talk pages for these templates mention anything of this controversy, BTW). Consider this TfD withdrawn pending the resolution of these issues. PC78 08:08, 20 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 08:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unused and redundant to {{Chinese}}. PC78 14:58, 19 August 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. IronGargoyle 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Only used in about a dozen or so articles, and redundant to {{Chinese}}. PC78 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Commnet Whatever the outcome, Template:Koreanname Chinesename should share the same fate. --Farix (Talk) 12:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not, since {{Chinese}} can't place Korean names at the top of the table, {{Koreanname Chinesename}} is far from being redundant when used in a Korean-specific context. PC78 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. This is also related to the problem described in Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters. Chinese language and Korean language are very different in nature. However, Chinese was used as the written language in Korean Peninsula until the 15th century, when Korean Hangul was invented. Due to this overlap, it is necessary to help both Chinese speakers and Korean speakers read the same entity in en.wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure how to take your comment. Are you opposing the deletion of {{Chinesename Koreanname}}? If so then I really don't know why, since it doesn't do anything that {{Chinese}} doesn't do. PC78 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To PC78 or others who want to remove Template:Chinesename Koreanname (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

1. Please duplicate all existing templates using :Template:Chinesename Koreanname (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) using {{Chinese}}. Make sure they are of equal or better quality. Then make the neccessary changes to the articles affected.

2. You are responsible for ensuring that there is not drop in quality in the articles affected by the change, that there is not disruption to the articles involved.

3. If you cannot ensure the two above, then leave everything alone, lest you be accused of disruption or vandalism.Wiki Pokemon 16:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

- Accusations of disruption or vandalism are completly unfounded. I've been holding off replacing these templates because I think there's a good case for using {{Koreanname Chinesename}} instead, but I have no intention of getting drawn into any debate over whether or not Balhae and related articles should been seen as primarily Chinese or Korean. PC78 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  - First I am not accusing you of anything like that. But some people might not like the disruption or the new look. And in general: Second the replacement should maintain the status quo of the article. Third, it also need to have the flexibility of making changes to previous status quo, if the need arises. I do not know the actual capability of all these template, so I am stating my concern about the technical point of these template. I am also concern about the opportunity for some people to change status quo of an article using technical reason or otherwise.Wiki Pokemon 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Sorry, I just wanted to make it clear that there were no ulterior motives behind this TfD. It's simply a case of wanting to update from this old template to the new one which is much more widely used and performs the same task. Nothing wrong with a little change in the name of progress. :) PC78 19:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep — until AFTER the said dispute(s) is(are) resolved, and the appropriate templates have replaced the ones still used out there. There are obviously articles out there which still use this template.--Endroit 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think PC78 is talking about replacing the skeleton of the template over here. He is not going to remove the instantiated template objects, or even change the content. If he does, I think he will get into big trouble. The one at Wandu Mountain City is nicely done.Wiki Pokemon 01:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, I agree that the new {{Chinese}} template is nice. The problem is, the controversial topics such as any of the articles in Category:Balhae rulers were deliberately omitted from inheriting that new template for some reason.--Endroit 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm aware of the controversy surrounding Balhae, but to the impartial observer (such as myself) it seems that all of these articles use a Korean name as their title, so it makes no sense for the infobox to give preference to the Chinese name. No doubt such controversies will persist regardless of which template is used. PC78 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
      - Yeah, I am very impartial too. Of course everybody thinks they are the most impartial person ever. I hope the statement I made above is impartial. Of course it is.Wiki Pokemon 06:02, 26 August 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 section.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] August 19

[edit] Template:Inuse-until

[edit] Template:Infobox Guitarist

[edit] Template:Original version

[edit] Template:VisualnovelsWikiProject

[edit] Template:User DGAF

[edit] Template:Chinesename

[edit] Template:Chinese info

[edit] Template:Chinesename Koreanname

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search