Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20, 2006

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tropical cyclone

Template:Tropical cyclone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete — Transcluded text into Tropical cyclone; am I incorrect in thinking that transclusion is considered very bad on Wikipedia in almost all cases? Especially for the INTRO of an article? It was also transcluded into another page likely used as a template, which made it a meta-template. Has been substed into both and is now an orphan. Golbez 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) --Golbez 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• This one is weird. It seems that Portal:Tropical cyclones/Intro got moved to {{Tropical cyclone}}, and I can't seem to find why. However, since the page it was from has been modified, this one needs a history merge. Delete, pending explanation of use. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This text isn't used repeatedly enough to necessitate the creation of a template. Regular text will do just fine. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Text templates are inherently pointless, and this one moreso than usual. - Cuivienen 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Titoxd.Clarinetplayer 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 11:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I created this one. The text for the portal was the same as the text for the article, and minor changes kept getting made to one without being made to the other. So I made it into a template. Jdorje 04:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - can't we copy and paste from the tropical cyclone page? CrazyC83 03:49, 29 January 2006 (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 page.

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 better arguments for deletion than for keeping it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Detailed explanation, from WP:DRV: First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Commonsgallery

History of this indicates it was created for one article - Maine Coon - because they didn't like certain qualities of Template:Commons (see Template talk:Commons). Template forks make maintenance and standardization difficult. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (revised)

• Keep more accurate and very helpful to those on the page (per the consensu of the editors there). The fact that is has been created for one page, so far, is not a proepr ground for deletion. Nominator argued against this template and lost the consensus there and is now trying another avenue to get his way. Shame.Gator (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't argue... I did try changing to the more common template, and was reverted. I didn't realize at the time this was a major issue, but I still believe this should be deleted. Suggestions for changing Template:Commons are welcome on that talk page. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So why not go to that page and attempt to persuade people instead?Gator (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This version of the template is inappropriate for any media gallery that contains media other than pictures. That is why a 'fork' is needed, instead of a change to the main template. --Malthusian (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have already described in detail what was wrong, in my personal opinion, with the Commons template at its talk page - please see: Template Talk:Commons#Not_very_obvious.2C_Poor_ease_of_use. After adding this, I waited 3 days, and received no response whatsoever. Then following the principles of {{sofixit}} and "be bold", I created this template, and then left yet another note on the Commons template talk page describing what had been done. So in response to Netoholic: There was ample opportunity to address what was wrong with Template:Commons, via explicit suggestion on its talk page, and not a single thing was done about it (and even now, nothing has been done about it). That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Quibble Actually I created the template, but most of the work is Nickj's. --Malthusian (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you did, I'm sorry, my mistake, my recollection was wrong (I had resolved to create something along these lines, but then I saw the template you created and modified that instead). -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, performs the same fuction as {{commons}}--nixie 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Performs the same function as {{commons}}, better (for image galleries). It was not created for one article, but for all articles with Commons links to image galleries. No-one objected to its creation or attempted to rebut the criticisms of the standard template at Template_talk:Commons that led to its creation - even though when I re-reverted Netoholic's reversion of Maine Coon the first time, I left the edit summary "If there's a problem with it, please join the discussion at Template_talk:Commonsgallery and Template_talk:Commons)". Disclaimer: I created the template, though the main contribution - the picture of the camera - was added by Nickj. --Malthusian (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As for the criticisms in the nomination: standardization is the problem this template was created to address, as standardization requires that we have that meaningless *ahem* abstract Commons logo just because a linked page might contain mixed media, even though it doesn't. And I don't understand what 'maintenance' means. --Malthusian (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: template forking is evil, and do we really need to advertise for Olympus every time we link to the Commons? —Phil | Talk 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not intended to be an ad for Olympus (don't own one of their products, don't work for them, don't own stock) - it was simply a bog standard-looking SLR camera. If you know of a better image that says to the uninitiated user "More pictures available" (a test which the current commons logo flunks), then please update the template. As for the fork, forks happen for a reason - in this case, that problems and improvement-requests for the original were not dealt with, and ongoing protection over the original template makes updating it impossible for non-admins. In software terms, this would be like releasing something under open source, then refusing to give anyone else CVS access, and completely ignoring your users. In that situation, a fork is the natural and healthy outcome. Same logic applies here. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful template --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Another example of its use is here. I should confess I reworded the template so that the wording in both test articles makes sense. 66.167.139.86 00:14, 2 February 2006 (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 page.

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikireview

(and Template:Wikireviewpar)

Only Wikimedia Foundation sister project templates should use that style. I'm doubtful that even normal external links to Wikireview are encyclopedic. -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• 158 google hits says this is plain ol' linkspam. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a wikimedia sister project--nixie 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nixie.--cjllw | TALK 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --not a wikimedia sister projectJohnRussell 17:32, 30 January 2006 (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 page.