Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 14

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox papacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I hope I'm not going to the underworld for this, but I'm nominating this template for deletion because it was created in this previous December without any discussion and was only used on the article Pope. I just subst'ed the template and now it has no mainspace transclusions. Frankly, I don't see it needing to be used on any other pages so there's no need for a template used on a single page. — Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I concur, same reasons. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unless someone has created several new papacies since the last time I looked, this really does have no utility whatsoever. Happy‑melon 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As far as I know there is only one pope at a time, so no need to template it. Arnoutf (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was subst: and delete all. Per the strength of arguments below (notably WP:IBX). The deletion does not remove any content. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We might as well have a consolidated discussion about all of these templates. These are all hardcodings of {{Infobox Music genre}}, many of which have only one transclusion, or one legitimate transclusion; there are many instances where these infoboxes are transcluded somewhere they are not appropriate (I've removed several [1][2]). None of the boxes have code so lengthy as to warrant separation from the article, as is perhaps the case with {{elementbox}} and its derivatives. I have excluded {{Christian music}} as it appears to be an exception to this rule, having several legitimate transclusions. If anyone can point out other templates in this selection which are legitimately transcluded several times, I will strike them; most if not all, however, appear to offer no advantage over a direct transclusion of {{Infobox Music genre}}, and should all be substituted and then deleted. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Replace with {{Infobox Music genre}} and delete all. If the main box's color scheme is not to people's liking, it can easily be changed since there is already a parameter for color. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• As I said in the previous discussion on {{techno}}, if these are deleted please make sure they are all substed on their main articles first, to replace the transclusion with a genrebox. I'd have no issue with them being deleted if they're only transcluded onto the articles on the genre. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Subst and speedy delete Aren't these a textbook example of CSD T3? JPG-GR (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment per my above comment, I'm tagging these as CSD T3. JPG-GR (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Case has not convincingly been made for deletion, and a proper substitute that retains the content has not been provided. I don't see how the deletion of these boxes will enhance our encyclopedia for our users. This represents the worst form of overzealousness, as discussion should have been engaged in before such a deletion proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, this is said discussion. Secondly, all of these templates are filled-in versions of {{Infobox Music genre}}, which is a violation of CSD T3. Thirdly, as I have stated, it's not that these are gonna be stripped from the articles - they will (hopefully obviously/logically), be subst'd on the one or two articles each belongs on and then the separately filled-in templates will be deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - This doesn't make any sense. Please use normal English, thanks. First you say we won't lose anything, then you say they'll all be deleted. I'm even more firmly convinced that this deletion proposal was not thought through clearly (and I was not incorrect in stating that no discussion took place before the deletion proposal, as should have occurred, on the individual pages, making it clear what the editor thought was best to improve the templates, why, and how s/he would go about doing that). Badagnani (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Let me explain. Each of these template pages contains nothing more than a template call to {{Infobox Music genre}}. Each one therefore acts merely as a 'wrapper' for Infobox Music genre, which would be fine if the combination of parameters hardcoded into the template was used on many separate pages. This is the case with {{Christian music}}, but is not the case with most if not all of the others. So {{Smoothjazz}} is transcluded only Smooth jazz. Why is it not possible to replace the template call of {{Smoothjazz}} on Smooth jazz with the contents of {{Smoothjazz}}, which is a template call to {{Infobox Music genre}} with all the necessary parameters? This is what is proposed: no content is lost, no alteration occurs to the appearance of the articles. But instead of having 35 templates, we have just one. I hope this explains the process to you - I'm afraid if you still don't understand I can't make it much simpler :D. Apart from that, there is no requirement to discuss wheter it is a good idea to open a deletion discussion - that would be bureaucracy to the extreme. It is the opinion of myself and those who have voted delete that there isn't any way of improving the templates, other than by deleting them. Happy‑melon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep at one time these boxes were on the Genre, sub-genre and regional scenes pages. They have since been consistently removed from those pages. That was a useful way of navigating between related articles. They could be used ib that way again. (note: I created a number of these based on that rationale.) Paul foord (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Infoboxes, per WP:IBX - should be used to provide summary information about the subject of the article. A sub-genre should have an infobox about that sub-genre, not one that provides information about a different topic. The spirit of WP:IBX is that two identical infoboxes should rarely if ever appear on two different articles - hence there is rarely if ever a need for a template holding a hard-coded infobox. Happy‑melon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note - they have now been tagged for speedy deletion (CSD T3) - some one doesn't want a discussion! Paul foord (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the conditions of WP:CSD#T3, these templates may be deleted only after being tagged for seven days. You'll note that this discussion will finish in five days. This is not an attempt to speedily delete without discussion, but a way of encouraging greater participation in this discussion, as well as a safety net to ensure that, if this discussion closes in favour of deletion, none of them are lost. If you object to the speedy deletion tags, you may remove them, but I really cannot see the purpose in doing so. The outcome of this discussion will overrule the CSD nomination in any case. Happy‑melon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd call that forum-shopping. Instead of vote for keep or delete, I !vote that the people who are willing to spend all their time conjuring up multiple deletion processes for this instead go in and fill in the appropriate genre infoboxes on all the pages that have these other templates in them. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Umm... once they are subst'd they will be filled-in on all the pages that have them. JPG-GR (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not stupid. While you were busy patronizing me, I fixed them all (and not by sloppily substing them either). They are all now orphaned and this discussion can be closed as speedy delete - orphaned deprecated templates all around. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Not patronizing, attempting to explain. Given the previous comments from others, I'm not sure how well known template-eese is. WP:AGF. JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under CSD:T3. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster ^UTC 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Subst and delete. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2008 (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 section.

• After carefully considering all the arguments, I must say that the surge of keeps at the end and Dr who1975's argument win out. Kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Future election in the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's excessive and unnecessary. Merge into Template:Future election. —Markles 14:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - One desirable outcome for having the U.S. template, is that all U.S. articles with the template get put into Category:Future_elections_in_the_United_States. At the moment about 110 articles are in the U.S. category, and about 160 articles(apparently none U.S.) in the general Category:Future_elections. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. Then let's add that it creates Overcategorization without a good purpose - another reason to merge it away.—Markles 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

***I don;t agree on the overcategorization point... however... if automatic categorization is the only concern, couldn't Template:Future election be updated to automatically put Category:Future_elections on it's pages. Wouldn't that be the sensible solution to categorization concerns?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral for now: Based on Yellowdesk's numbers I favor retaining the distinction, but not significantly. My concern had been ensuring that Future election could distinguish between article/section and uncategorized/specific elections, but I discovered (and just now documented) that that template already has that capability! That is, the "future election" template can distinguish the U.S. elections to the user, but cannot distinguish them while categorizing. If it's possible for it to sort its contained articles by Field 2, why, then, this question is academically settled in favor of deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Thats a redundant template as {{Future election}} does the same job. As for the categorization I don't see a reason why those pages can't go into Category:Future elections.
• Merge to {{Future election}} - no clear need for this specific case, and US elections are not special, it's just that more of them happen to be covered on Wikipedia. WP:OVERCAT also applies, so we should delete the category as well. Happy‑melon 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Third-world countries' elections should use the regular election template, USA elections deserve there own template. They are more thoroughly covered and should have a specification on the template that it is a US election.CoolKid1993 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of who "deserves" it. 1st world or 3rd, there's no USE for this template.—Markles 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, provides nothing useful, compared to the main template. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If half of the 300 'future elections' articles are in the U.S., it's not "overcategorization," it's simple organization. If any other country were to have a large amount of future elections, another sub-cat/template would be appropriate for them, too. —ScouterSig 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge It really does seem unecessary, there are plenty of mechanisms in place to distiguish future U.S. elections from othere countries and the existence of this template does nothing to improve on them. How does this template make it easier to search on U.S. elections?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It automatically puts election pages in the U.S. Future Election Category which is a different category than future elections... It is not overcategorization and it in fact reduces undercategorization by putting U.S. elections into a smaller, easier to scrutinize category. Election pages can often have such similar names and it helps to get them seperated into categories. This template makes serching for data in wikipedia easier and better.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding the overcategorization issue, ditto Dr. who1975. As to the necessity question, what is important is whether it is helpful. As Dr. who explains in the immediately preceding comment, the US-specific template puts articles in the US-specific category. That is helpful. If the generic template could be modified to put the article in a subcategory if country = United States, I would agree that the US template is unnecessary and should be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. It's not overcategorisation, it's simply common sense. —Nightstallion 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dr who1975, Rrius, and Nightstallion. Regarding the issue of "who deserves it": the separate template does not signify that elections in the U.S. are "special", it just means that (as of yet) no one has created templates for "future elections in" ....England, Canada, Brazil, et al.--JayJasper (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into {{future election}} as long as that template is modified to include a "location" parameter which would sort elections in separate country categories and possibly include a flag on the template. Essentially, I think there should be fewer, standardized templates rather than many templates, which could evolve in different directions. The template should be kept until this "location/country/jurisdiction" parameter is added. ~ Paul^T+/_C 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there an automated bot that could apply such a parameter to all the U.S. elections that use the U.S. Template?--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Rrius, Dr who1975, etc. This template serves a purpose since categorization of US Elections is very helpful for people. It would be annoying to have to sort through all 300 elections to pick out the US ones, if a particular wikipedia user was only interested in the US ones. This is not overcategorization as it actually has a purpose and isn't for just 3 articles out there. There is a sizeable number. -Bluedog423^Talk 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it's useful for categorization. Every country with a significant number of elections could easily have its own template and subcategory. Grandmasterka 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Grandmasterka... having very specific current event categories is useful for maintenence purposes. E.g. it will be easier to go through all the US election-related articles the day after the election this year if they're all alone in a category. --Rividian (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was discussion consolidated here. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Reggaetónbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Happy‑melon 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• 'Speedy' delete per WP:CSD#T3 - unnecessary hardcoding of {{Infobox Music genre}}. Subst and delete. Happy‑melon 21:24, 14 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was discussion consolidated here. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can see deleting this would be no issue as the same could be achieved on the techno article using the standard genrebox template, which is what makes this. However if this is deleted please make sure it's substed on the techno article first. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:09, 14 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was No consensus Happy‑melon 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Google images (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A deletion request has been added on the Norwegian Wikipedia at no:Wikipedia:Sletting#Mal:Google-bilder. I'd rather see that this deletion discussion also can be done here. Main reason for deletion request is a hypotesis that this linking will mostly add links to illegal copyright material. — Nsaa (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was I who unadverently started this, after finding such a link at French WP. At first it seemed a good idea, so I imported the link. Then I asked for a Norwegian procedure with a question if this might be a good idea. Obviously it finally was not considered that.

Many results go to irrelevancies, and to give Google a search containing a popular first name like Arnold - oooh! But searches often present results linking to material that clearly is a breach of Norwegian laws regulating works of art, so for us, I think the intention (good) does not defend implementing and using the template on no:WP, because of too high % suspect results. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, template really isn't a good idea for this one, encouraging links to Google Images is probably a WP:EL vio. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, {{Google images}} contains safety code to prevent people from using it in articles:

{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<span class="messagebox" style="padding: 0; 
font-size: xx-small; color: #000000;">''[[Template:Google]] should not be used in 
articles as Google links are not considered appropriate for an encyclopedia.''

External link templates such as {{Google}}, {{Google images}}, {{Google custom}}, and {{Google help desk}} are not for use in articles; they are for use in talk pages and project pages such as the Help desk, the Reference desk, WikiProjects, etc. The other Google-search-related templates explain this in their documentation, but {{Google images}} does not yet, so I will fix that. Also, see the similar deletion discussion that resulted in "keep": Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19#Template:Google. --Teratornis (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I updated the template documentation and put it on a new subpage: Template:Google images/doc, in keeping with what seems to be the new style of documenting templates on separate subpages via the {{documentation}} template (subpaging the documentation seems a bit complicated to me, but I can roll with it). --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, ref. Teratornis. Nsaa (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep, in a modified form. Happy‑melon 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As an exercise in the design of templates which completely and utterly bugger up any real possibility of adding images to an article, and which force succession boxes two or three printed pages of whitespace down the page - see James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray or David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, for example, this template takes the biscuit. Have not its creators looked at what it does to the pages it has been placed on? Have they ever tried to place a right justified image onto an article despoiled by this template? Do we need to know, or care enough to want to see listed in a template all of the the children of all of the Stuart kings? Wither any common sense in the design of templates? For all of these reasons, let us be rid of this useless & ill thought out conceit, or at a bare minimum let someone come along & add some expand/contract wizardry defaulting to contracted, or convert it into a horizontal template to be placed at the foot of articles or, come and take me away, foaming with indignation and utter astonishment to the nearest place of asylum. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and yepee too ... thought no-one would ever get around to nominating that monstrosity! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This template adds nothing to the article that couldn't be better provided by a House of Stewart (Scotland) template at the bottom of the page. The need for the entire line of Stewart Kings and their children in a sidebar infobox eludes me. -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and fix It's awful, yes, but fixable. Wizardified version here, as converted to navbox & horizontal navigational footer style. Note that I've reverted to the prior format for now, until the TfD is resolved. Maralia (talk)
• Fix per Maralia -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Fix per Maralia. I'll implement it this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Merge with Template:Street Fighter series and delete. Happy‑melon 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Street Fighter anime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pretty unnecessary template, and could be merged into Template:Street Fighter series.. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete. Agreed. The contents can easily be merged into Template:Street Fighter series, making the links more compact and easy to maintain. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Merged the links from the anime template into the SF template, keeping the adaptations per VG series distinct. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been merged. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (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.