Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 15

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nostub-expand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duplicates the purpose of {{expand}}. {{Expand}} is only used on non-stub articles (as explained on its talk page), so this new template is redundant (as well as being uglier than t:expand). — Grutness...wha? 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

can you tell me where on that page it says "only"? I sure cant see it. Antome | ^talk 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Template_talk:Expand#.7B.7BExpand.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BStub.7D.7D. You may also be interested to know that bots are occasionally run to remove instances of expand and stub templates being used on the same article. The reason is simple - since stub templates all say "please expand", there is no point having a second template saying "please expand" on the same page. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment If one is of the belief that {{expand}} can be used on non-stubs, this template is unnecessary. If one is of the belief that {{expand}} cannot be used on non-stubs, it would stand to reason that no template for that purpose should exist, as an expand template doesn't belong. JPG-GR 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or fix. It currently does not add the article that uses it into any category, making it nothing more that a pretty logo at the bottom of the page. If it is to be kept, it needs to add the article that uses it into some kind of maintenance category.Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose&fixed. I have added it into the articles to be expanded area, although this may restult in more argument, it has been commented and reccomended, so this is the choice i made. ^{Oh and would someone read the discussion of the St. Josephs article? mabye BEFORE the next vote for deletion?} and Gruntness, i am not sure how "ugly" comes in as a reason for deletion Antome | 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Presuming you're referring to me by "Gruntness", if there are two templates which do the same job, as these two do, then the better one should be used. {{nostub-expand}} does the same job as {{expand}}, but has a longer, less easily used title (and is therefore functionally uglier) and has a less attractive appearance (therefore aesthetically uglier) - both things which mitigate against the use of {{nostub-expand}}. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly duplicates {{expand}}, in a more clumsy fashion. Delete, or redirect. Alai (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not exactly duplicate {{expand}}. It does not add the article into any maintenance category like expand does. It is formatted in the style of stub templates while expand is formated in the more general notice box type format. Expand is generally used at the top of an article or talk page, this template is only used at the bottom of the article page in place of the stub template. The general intent of both is the same. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't like "expand" either. It insults the intelligence of our users. Not only that, putting these "helpful" templates in full view implies that creating wikipedia is the prime objective (rather than for someone to use it). I'll put my soapbox away now Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 1:This is not an exact duplicate, 2:I dont thing any of you, apart from gruntness mabye, have read st josephs talk, 3: "UGLY" is still not a delete reason, nor is "I DONT LIKE IT", 4:I do not want the certain images stubs or anti stub templates have. 5: To make you all happy, i moved it to User:Antome/templates/nostub expandAntome | ^talk 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You're onlyu supposed to have one !vote, so you shouldn't be saying "oppose" every time here. You may say that it's not an exact duplicate when functionally it is, and I've explained why ugliness is a factor in that case. Userfying isn't a viable option either when a template is designed to be used on articles, since it will still be visible on those articles - userfying is only really useful for templates for user pages and the like. Grutness...wha? 20:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• true, but noone else wamts it on any other article by the looks of it, and that is what userfying is for, not many people are going to want the images youve userfied because they dont like it or they think its ugly, or just plain not them, i think that defines most of you and everyone else APART FROM MY SCHOOLMATES AND THE SCHOOL PRINCABLE (another reason why it shouldnt be deleted),which means if you deleted this, it would be a bit like deleting someones this users name is: template. And if anyone did want this template, its not that hard to get Antome | ^talk 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Templates designed to be used on articles are visible to general readers if used in articles, whether they have been userfied or not. For that reason, userfying them makes no practical difference whatsoever. Userfication is only normally used for templates used in user space. Images are different, since they are only ever going to be used on the user's page (and userfication of images is very, very rare). I've already explained my usage of the word ugly, and why it is valid in this debate, but it seems you choose not to understand it. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ok . Noones looked at the pages discussion, and all the main editors of that article(including me) dont want it to go. And the fact is, im not sure how a stub image can go into a not a stub template, it would be like an image of some cake on the american flag. Antome | ^talk 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What page's discussion? There is no Template talk:Nostub-expand. And there's nothing in the talk page of the one article using it which indicates that this template is to be preferred over a standard expand template. I have no idea what you mean by "a stub image going into a not a stub template" - the only thing which might be called a "stub image" is the icon on the template, which varies from stub to stub, and which you have two of in this template. I don't see the connection with cake on the US flag. BTW, the page was also at a not-particularly-good title (there are plenty of Fairfields aroudn the world - including at least one more in NZ, only a few miles from where I am in Dunedin). I've also tidied up the article a little to make it more in line with other NZ school articles. BTW - it doesn't really bnned any further expansion anyway - it's twice as long as most articles on NZ schools, and most primary schools don't even have articles on WP anyway (primary schools are usually judged not notable enough for articles, and any articles made on them are usually deleted at WP:AFD). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• youre not meant to get a connection between the two, its an example of something with no connection, like having a stub icon on a non stub template, oh... and i look at {{expand}}...oh look there....hang on a moment... where does it say NOT A STUB?...hmm...no still cant see it...no, its not there. Also, i never said anything about a template talk, i said ST.JOSEPHS TALK, and if you said i didnt, go read this little deletion vote (that shouldnt even be here) then try your next pitiful attempt to argue this pointless deletion nomination onwards, seriously people, stop making excuses, excuses are never good, and they are eaven worse at perswasion.Antome Talk 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, don't shout. It says it's not a stub simply by it being an expand template. {{Expand}} is never used on stubs, as already explained to you. I'm not sure what part of that statement you failed to grasp previously, but it remains true. The discussion on that template details that it should not be used on stubs, and why it shouldn't. That has also already been explained to you. That's the whole reason why your template is useless; it's doing exactly the same thing as existing templates in a more cumbersome way. You didn't say "St Josephs talk, you said "Noones looked at the pages discussion" - and the page we are dealing with here is the template, therefore by implication you were referring to its talk page. I did also look at the discussion page of the St. Joseph's school article (quite some time ago, but again when fixing up the article), but that had no relevance to what you've been saying, since no-one there made any comparison between your template and the {{expand}} template at all. I'm at a loss to know exactly what you mean by "making excuses", since all we are doing is following standard practice for templates which fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. I can't say that you have made any excuses, either, since you have made neither excuses nor any form of rational argument for maintaining this template. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The "template" doesn't seem to add any extra features that {{expand}} doesn't already cover. Plus, I don't see any relevant discussion of the template on any of the talk pages mentioned. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is redundant to {{Expand}}, and that template is by far more widely-used (and better-designed) than this one. Terraxos (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is redundant to {{expand}} (that it's not identical is irrelevant, as "redundant" doesn't imply "identical"), is visually inferior to {{expand}}, and goes against the standard template format introduced via Wikipedia:Template standardisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 22 November 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. Spebi 05:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox retired NHL player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is basically a duplicate of Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player I believe it was created prior to functionality being added to the other template to allow for retired players. No article currently uses this template as the much more well designed on is found on most articles. — Djsasso 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redundant and unused. JPG-GR 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No point in having it when {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} is available. -- JD554 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 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 subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiKnowledge-FGM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template only links to a small handful of articles. 68.33.4.105 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• What is the rationale for deletion? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose appears to be no good reason why this template should be deleted. Appears to have only had a previous tfd closed 8 days ago. I totally can't read. It appears that was almost exactly a year ago. --Djsasso 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is only used on four articles and the target pages only contain move sets ("f,d,df + P", etc.). Its purpose would be better served by normal external links, and indeed there already links on other fighting character pages that link to this site without this template. Garrett^Talk 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nomination rationale does not meet qualifications for deletion. JPG-GR 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per Garrett. That the nominator did not provide an adequate rationale is not reason to keep the template, especially since another editor provided a deletion rationale. No argument has been advanced to justify retention of the template, and both "oppose" comments are directed at the quality of the nomination statement rather than the merits of the template. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 22 November 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. Spebi 05:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is already a template (Template:DancingwiththeStars(US)). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & I'm not sure what this was actually supposed to do. SkierRMH 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SkierRMH. Template is not currently transcluded and purpose is unclear. JPG-GR 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant template. Doczilla (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Victuallers (talk) 16:19, 17 November 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.