Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:38, 5 November 2008

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2

Template:Concept automobile

Template:Concept automobile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template itself provides the reason why it should be deleted: "Concept cars, by definition, rarely become production models". Which means that most concept cars stay concept cars for all eternity. Which also means that those articles will contain this supposedly "temporary" template for all eternity, which is rather pointless. Additionally, stating that an article might contain information of speculative nature is not useful, either, since that's true for most articles. Also note that this nomination is not about Category:Concept automobiles and Category:Upcoming automobiles, which are perfectly fine categories, IMHO. If the template will be deleted, the closing admin should add the categories to every article that previously included the template. Conti|✉ 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lede and text of the article and associated footnotes are fully capable of describing the contingent and future nature of the topic without a template that may be at the top of an article for years and adds nothing to the content of the article. Superfluous. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Building under construction and Template:Stadium under construction

Template:Building under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stadium under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are supposed to be added to all articles on buildings/stadiums that are currently under construction. They notify the reader that the article "may contain information of a speculative nature", which doesn't seem very useful to me, since that statement is true for pretty much every article we have. They also say that "the content [of the article] may change dramatically and frequently", which is not true at all. Most buildings (at least most of those that we have an article on) take many, many years to complete, and the content of those articles very, very rarely changes dramatically or frequently. Also note that this nomination is not about Category:Buildings under construction or Category:Stadiums under construction, which are perfectly fine categories, IMHO. If the templates will be deleted, the closing admin should add the corresponding category to every article that previously included the templates. --Conti|✉ 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Note that I have changed the nomination to include Template:Stadium under construction as well, since exactly the same rationale applies to it. If anyone disagrees with this, I'm happy to create an additional nomination for that template. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The message of this template is too obvious and not needed. Plus it means having this tag on an article for several years. Garion96 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholeheartedly agree. If a building is still under construction that should be made abundantly clear in the first sentence. No need for this intrusive self-reference. The fact that it's been placed here is taking the piss. Flowerparty^☀ 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was really weird, I removed it from that article. Perhaps one time we should look at some other templates placed in Category:Temporal templates. An example of templates getting out of hand. Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{Stadium under construction}}, where the same argument seems to apply. Perhaps we could lump this one in? Flowerparty^☀ 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts you're right, there's loads of them. Let's just stick with this one for now. Flowerparty^☀ 23:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) I've added the template to this nomination. The exact same reasoning applies to both templates, IMHO. I have created various other TFD nominations for other templates in that category already. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)f[reply]

Fine by me. I held back when I noticed {{Future sports venue}}, {{Future arena}} and {{Sports venue under re-development}} (!?). Flowerparty^☀ 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situations surrounding those templates are slightly different, IMHO (which doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted). They're not nearly as widely used, for example. Template:Sports venue under re-development is only used in 1 article, which alone should be enough reason to delete it. But that's a discussion for another nomination, I think. :) --Conti|✉ 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Functionally a copy of {{future}}. Superfluous and an example of temporal template proliferation. The lede and content of the article, with appropriate footnotes is far better able to describe the contingent and planned nature of the topic in question. This argument applies to all of the sub-categories created of the {{future}} template. All are redundant, and fail to add to the content of the articles in question. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't like any current/future event tags at all. To me they violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Reywas92^Talk 11:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggested the creation of the Stadium Under Construction template (see Talk:Lucas Oil Stadium), so the sports venues under construction didn't have the proposed arena" template (the arena wouild be already in construction, but its wikipedia template would be proposed, what is not correct.) Brady4mvp (Talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I've actually used it in the past, there is no reason to say info may be "speculative". Per WP:V everything on WP should be cited and therefore nothing should be speculation. Black ngold29 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK underground

Template:UK underground (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems an inappropriate topic for a navbox. No objective inclusion criteria, so it relies on POV. And while I'd argue that all of the links merit mention in the UK underground article itself, it's not true that all of the links merit inclusion in all of the articles. The topics covered here are not necessarily related to each other directly, they've just been lumped together after the fact. Not every topic can be navboxified. In this case the article should be improved instead. Flowerparty^☀ 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The UK underground is a recognised cultural phenomenon with leading advocates, publications and bands, as stated in the article. Some of these only have any existence or notability in this context. Others have a major connection with it, or it was where they first achieved wider exposure. This is a standard use of a navbox to enable readers to easily access various articles which are related to this subject. It's contradictory to argue that the links are legitimate in the article, but not in the navbox. As the nom has previously stated, "The box does does provide an admirable summary of the topic."[1] There may be a case for examining specific inclusions, but not for the deletion of the whole navbox. Ty 01:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No contradiction: I'm suggesting we don't need a navbox here - it doesn't follow that if we delete the navbox we should delete the article as well. If people are looking for information on the UK underground then the article would seem a sufficient navigational base, and it should duly be linked to within the text of each article. It's no use trying to second guess the ~~interests~~ intentions of our readers. Flowerparty^☀ 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be an argument to delete all navboxes. Ty 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most navboxes - the useful ones at least - group together articles that are unambiguously subtopics of some broader umbrella topic, like with {{Darwin}}. Or otherwise it's at least clear why what's included is included, as with {{US Presidents}}. This template, by contrast, has no clear inclusion criteria. In fact it feels like an article stripped of all its prose and shoehorned into a box. Flowerparty^☀ 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out above the inclusion criteria, namely "leading advocates, publications and bands" (etc) of the UK underground movement. Ty 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that objective? You suggested here that you'd used wikipedia as a source for this. Flowerparty^☀ 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course wikipedia is the source, as it is a navbox for wikipedia articles. It is not an original article, but depends on existing articles. Ty 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is the unrelatedness of the linked articles. There is no reason to assume that a reader would want to jump from, say, the UFO Club article to the Mersey Sound one, or from Gay News to Pink Floyd, or from Germaine Greer to pretty much any of the mostly fairly arcane other topics listed here. They might, of course, but then it should be up to them to find their way from one article to the next. (This isn't an argument against one or two specific links, btw: pick any random article A from this template and count how many of the other topics are even mentioned within the text of A - very few if any. The only article that should link to all of these topics is UK underground. Again, if a reader is interested in the UK underground they'll find their way to that article.) See also bolded points 1 and 3 at WP:NAV#Properties. Flowerparty^☀ 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can apply that argument to any navbox that covers a general topic by cherry-picking links and misrepresenting them. Let us just examine Germaine Greer who you seem to see as a clear invalidation of the template. The article on her states that she "as Dr. G, became a regular contributor to the underground London magazine Oz, owned by the Australian writer Richard Neville. The 29 July 1970 edition was guest-edited by Greer". She has a clear and strong connection to the topic and other articles listed in the navbox. Ty 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not be dragged into scrapping this out link by link. It's the whole template that's the problem. Flowerparty^☀ 08:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TodaysFinancialNews

Template:TodaysFinancialNews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. That's probably not very surprising, considering that the template says that articles using it should not exist in the first place. Conti|✉ 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another example of temporal template proliferation, copying the fuctionality of {{current}} without adding to the content of the article itself. The lede, text and associated footnotes are the the best and the standard Wikipedia method to indicate the recentness of any topic. Superfluous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current change in status

Template:Current change in status (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 1 article currently. The template basically states that some kind of business or organization is undergoing some change right now. We don't need to inform our readers about that with a template, we do that with the article itself. Conti|✉ 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template mimics some of the functionality of {{current}}. Its use has been highly misleading in its placement on articles for entities with complex corporate restructuriings, such as Washington Mutual. An example of the uselessness of a temporal template, where text in the lede and appropriate sections of the article in question are far more capable of describing the changes the entity has recently (or not so recently) undergone. The template cannot begin to approach a description of what happens during a restructuring, and needlessly takes up prominant space at the top of the article without improving the content of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yellowdesk. If it's necessary to mention this with a template at all (and it usually isn't), the {{current}} and {{current-related}} templates do the job much better. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYPD Blue character

Template:NYPD Blue character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to {{Infobox character}} Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwiki-expand

Template:Interwiki-expand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are already too much maintenance tags for the English Wikipedia. Let's not have maintenance tags on en.wikipedia regarding Wikipedia in other languages. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only likely to confuse readers, surely. Flowerparty^☀ 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a maintenance tag is not useful, then this could rather be implemented as a list on WikiProject Echo. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment restrict to talk page? 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - sorry to say it, but it's not really the business of the English Wikipedia to be encouraging users to work on other 'pedias. Especially given how undeveloped some of them are, meaning that just about every English article could be justifiably tagged with this template. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand-topic

Template:Expand-topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost the same as template above. No need for a maintenance tag on one article to ask if something could be done on other articles. Garion96 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some topics on Wikipedia that are severely lacking coverage, and this could lead to systematic bias. It may be better to place this template on a talkpage, so that editors could be able to collabrate within the relavent Wikiproject. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the wikiproject templates are for. Which are already on the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: substantially the same functionality as {{expand}}. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad idea for an article template, as it could proliferate widely without being of much use (e.g. adding this to every single member of Category:Comic book characters seems like it would be counterproductive). Would be fine as a talkpage template, but we have WikiProject templates already for that. Terraxos (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOSS Stalwarts And Emerging Personalities

Template:FOSS Stalwarts And Emerging Personalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used/useful. Damiens.rf 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lergely a duplicate of the nebulously-qualified {{FOSS personalities}}; let's not go making even more of these. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems self-contradictory. Another name for it would be "longbeards and noobs". Which is it? Both? In which case who wouldn't be covered by it? RussNelson (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amongst other things, there are problems of neutrality and original research with this template. Who is to decide what makes someone a 'FOSS Stalwart'? It would be better off deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsburgh Steelers seasons

Template:Pittsburgh Steelers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All information has been merged into Template:Pittsburgh Steelers. It is redundant to have two. Black ngold29 18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1974 FIFA World Cup venues

Template:1974 FIFA World Cup venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after sustitution onto the only page likely to ever make use of it (1974 FIFA World Cup). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template itself is actually pretty nice and the info is useful. As it is only used on one artice, however, it does not warrant a template. Keep info in the article, delete actual template. Black ngold29 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 Unused. That's probably not very surprising, considering that the template says that articles using it should not exist in the first place. [[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''  Yet another example of temporal template proliferation, copying the fuctionality of {{tl|current}} without adding to the content of the article itself. The lede, text and associated footnotes are the the best and the standard Wikipedia method to indicate the recentness of any topic. Superfluous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- [[User:Yellowdesk|Yellowdesk]] ([[User talk:Yellowdesk|talk]]) 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - violates [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]]. [[User:Terraxos|Terraxos]] ([[User talk:Terraxos|talk]]) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Current change in status]] ====