Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 6 February 8 >

Contents

[edit] February 7

[edit] Template:ORBCOTW

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 Userfied to User:Nesher/ORBCOTW. Happy‑melon 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This template and its subordinate, Template:ORBCOTW article, are vestiges of a WikiProject that has lain dormant for well over a year. I first noted this in a TFD nomination in April 2007, which I withdrew after objections from WikiProject members. I do not anticipate any objections this time. The page history of both the WikiProject and its talk page show no real activity for more than a year.

It is not necessary to delete the template altogether. Rather, it should be kept for historical reasons, but all transclusions to talk pages, i.e. incoming links, should be removed. — Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Move to a user-subpage of the original author and then delete - redundant and abandoned. Green Giant (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy MBisanz talk 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. I was just about to close this, but I saw that Special:Whatlinkshere said that it was transcluded on 1000s of pages. Does anyone know why this is? When I go to the talk pages in question it is never actually there (and it doesn't seem to be transcluded through another template either, as far as I can tell). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer Hell if I know. :) I tried to figure it out but couldn't. I think it's related to WikiProject Judaism but I'm not sure. I'd ask RyanGerbil10. He's pretty smart on this stuff. Or you can ask someone on the project page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:10, 15 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.

[edit] Template:WAFerry

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 delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The template has been deprecated, and all uses (transclusions) of it have been converted to instead use {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. — - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 7 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.

[edit] Template:PUBCOLNOM

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 delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

A now-unused template for a collaboration project by a then-new user that never caught on. -- RG2 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No apparent interest in this template ever being employed. Happy‑melon 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not needed. MBisanz talk 23:49, 7 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.

[edit] Template:PD-MNGov

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-MNGov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The interpretation of the Minnesota law in this template may be incorrect. Making information accessible to the public and releasing information to the public domain are two different things and this is only for certain public data, not for any work of the State of Minnesota. — Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Keep - The template states in the 3rd section that "public data" can not be copyrighted. The 1st section provides the MN definition of "public data", which is also used when the public requests information. Availability and release may be two different things but this states that things which are MN "public data" are PD. The template states that there are exceptions to what is public data, but this template will be attached to stuff which is public data. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Keep this helpful template per SEWilco. Thanks for checking on it though. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:24, 7 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.

[edit] Template:SubArticle

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Let's not waste our readers' time telling them about our size and style guidelines. Let them get on with reading the article. There is already a talk page template for marking subarticles, Template:Summary in, which can be used instead if desired. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - That's not the purpose of the template, and Template:Summary in isn't the same thing. The purpose of this template is to reinforce the idea that the subarticle is part of the main article. A few guidelines (notably WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE) are undergoing revision to (hopefully) acknowledge this, so deleting this is premature. Torc2 (talk)) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you give me an example of where it would be a good idea to use this template? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Any List of (topic) article where Topic has established notability, List of characters in (topic), List of (topic) episodes, etc., or just about any time part of an article needs to be separated off due to readability issues but still needs to be a part of a larger article. This includes most of the time Template:Main is used and editors want to reinforce the idea to the user that it's essentially one article split onto different pages. Torc2 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that it's important to understand that the articles are linked together. However, there is nicer way to do this. In List of characters in the comic strip Doonesbury and List of characters in Elfquest, for example, the name of the article is simply wikilinked in the first sentence of the lead. This links the articles together while avoiding having the user read the notice about size and style guidelines. Or worse, in the case of blind users using screen readers, the user would waste time while the notice was read to them.
        • If you want, we could keep this template and make it into a talk page template. My primary objection is that our readers just want to read the article; they don't care about size and style guidelines. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Nothing about the template forces the reader to deal with WP:SIZE. All it does is point the user towards a main article and state that this subarticle includes content for that article. Torc2 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Again, I would be fine with having this as a talk page template. However, a simple wikilink takes care of linking back to the main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete For what it's worth, I created this template. It was meant to do what Template:Summary in does, as you can see it's original state. I was unaware (and have been 'til today) that Tempate:Summary in existed. At some point its usage somehow moved from the talk to the article. I have no support for what it evolved into, and Template:Summary in appears sufficient. The intro should always include a wikilink to the larger context which makes a banner such as this redundant. Or, a customized template which shows the article's place in its contexual series of articles, eg, Template:John. --Ephilei (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Respectfully, this isn't really the template you created anymore. It was substantially changed in December 2007. About the only thing it has in common is the name, which is a more accurate reflection of the current purpose than its original purpose. Torc2 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Also for what it's worth, I'll take credit (or blame) for re-engineering the template into its current state. I did so because of the numerous AfD's that had popped up as soon as an article was split off. In particular, nominators were arguing that the SubArticle was suddenly unable to demonstrate notability once it was split off. Mere wikilinking (which is in every article) does not cut the mustard. The screen-reader argument is completely spurious. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We can keep it if you'd like, just make it into a talk page template. That way, Wikipedians will see it, but the casual reader will not. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as having no utility which cannot be provided by {{summary in}}. The perfect article does not contain self references, which this template unavoidably includes. No objection to recreating this template as a talk page template, but the usage is so different there's no harm in removing the old history. Happy‑melon 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to talk template Since I caused this problem, I am happy to volunteer to take on the task of turning it it back into a talk page template - a good compromise suggestion. However, I am hoping to do that without going down the delete/recreate route that HM suggests, because a bot will go through and take the template off of all the pages, and I will have no way to know what talk pages to put it onto. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think Torc2 does a good job of describing the purpose. I think it would be better on the main page instead of the talk page since the primary purpose is reader navigation, but I suppose I'd favor talk page placement over deletion. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Navigation is taken care of with a wikilink in the lead of the article, which is a more elegant solution. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Readers can see this by the links in the lead (which is why we don't use {{Main}} at the top either), and editors can see this by the presence of {{summary in}} on the talk page. Turning it into a talk template is will just make it a clone of 'summary in', and whether or not an article has been split off is an irrelevant, merely historical detail anyway. An article may have existed before its 'parent' came along, but the hierarchical status is still the same. If you want to know the article's origins, look at the page history. Richard001 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That the page is a subarticle is far, far from being "an irrelevant, merely historical detail", designating an article as a subarticle will allow the subarticle to depend on the main article for notability requirements, which is necessary for when AfD-bent editors insist on judging each wiki page in absolute isolation rather than recognizing that a subarticle is really just part of a larger topic. Besides, as you said, the chronology of the page might not lend readers to easily find the main article topic through the history. Torc2 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You are missing the point. A subarticle can be a subarticle without originating by being split off from a parent article. The template restricts itself to articles that have been split off by its clear wording. That an article is a 'subarticle' (in my sense, not in the narrow 'having been split off, historically', is encompassed by the broader {{summary in}}. Richard001 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, the template allows for that, although the wording can be misinterpreted. All it says now is that the subarticle is separated from the main article due to size or style limitations. It doesn't necessarily mean that either the main article or sub-article were created first. Only that, for all intents and purposes, the sub-article is part of the main article. Torc2 (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Sub-articles should not just be content dumped off from the main article. There needs to be a lead section and everything else that regular articles have. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Which doesn't preclude use of the tag, which will aid in clarity for many articles. Per Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_sub-articles, a sub-article does not have to reestablish notability from scratch. All this tag does is point the user to where notability for the subarticle is established. Torc2 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
              • The template can be useful in deletion debates, but the average user just doesn't care. Let us worry about notability stuff, and let the average user just read the article. The way to do this is by making this into a talk page template. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
                • The tag is not intrusive. It's a one-line hatnote! Do you really believe any user is going to get worn out reading this tag and give up on the rest of the article? Is this anywhere near as bothersome as {{references}}, {{merge}}, {{fact}} or any disambiguation message? Does the average reader care if an article might not be {{notable}} or is {{disputed}}? Should we move every hatnote and template to the talk page? Torc2 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • It's not extraordinarily intrusive, no. But it doesn't indicate a problem or alleviate confusion, so we don't need to bother average the user with it. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • (Deindent) It still seems the same as {{summary in}} to me. You've changed the template description, but your description of {{summary in}} doesn't reflect how it is being used or what it is intended for. It is used for all cases where one article is summarized by another. The is no room for two templates like this; it is one or the other. There are few non-subarticles tagged with {{SI}}, and even if we do want to differentiate these two types we can add a field to it, e.g. |subarticle=yes.
    • Putting it on the content page would of course differentiate it, but that is about as logical as putting WikiProject banners there. The reader doesn't care - editorial stuff goes on the talk page. Stuff that the reader may want to know about, like the fact that the article doesn't provide any sources and is hence of questionable reliability, are different. Granted, some notices aren't much use for the reader, but they are least supposed to be temporary cleanup notices, not permanent ones. Richard001 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was bold and remade this template into a talk page template. One problem I noticed is that many subarticles have no lead section to summarize them. Help would be appreciated going through subarticles tagged with this template and adding lead sections. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:10, 11 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.

[edit] Template:KeepVote

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 Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:KeepVote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:DeleteVote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:PossVote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:MergeVote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Single purpose templates created to allow one user to prettify his AfD votes. Unfortunately, it does't fit the standard used to register opinions and creates a large block of non-conforming text. — Pairadox (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep -awww come on! theye're so nice :). Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Anyone can use them (and formatting is fixed). — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete XfD's are discussions, not votes. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not really needed. StuartDD contributions 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser is not for fishing ...er, delete. Voting icons have been deleted before (though I can't find the most recent discussion) on the basis that they're unneeded, they encourage treating things as a straight numerical vote when they aren't, and many people don't like the way they break up discussions. As I see no evidence that things have changed, these should be deleted as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Your rationale seems a little.... fishy... :D. Happy‑melon 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Gavia. Happy‑melon 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I see the same usage issue here that prevents images in sigs. MBisanz talk 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As i look around more people are now using these templates. Keep that in mind Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is the only TfD I've ever seen where these templates have been used \Rightarrow it's a joke. Although it will produce an interesting discussion archive if these templates are deleted!! Happy‑melon 10:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Previous deletion discussions relating to voting templates: 20 Jun 2005 TFD, 27 October 2005 TFD, 30 May 2006 DRV, 3 May 2007 TFD. --Muchness (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would keep them, but if they're disliked then move them to Compwhizii's userspace. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (or should I say Keep?), hey we use them on COM:RFD and they're not a vote either! There are no objections to using them on Commons, so why not here? And, they deleted them even when I made them in Userspace. ViperSnake151 19:11, 13 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.