Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 6 August 2007

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

Template:Unsigned3

Functionally redundant with {{unsigned}} except for the explicit admonition. However it also has a bug as its missing the trailing (UTC) which the archive bots pick up on. I propose that if they passes, a bot subst the <500 uses and delete the template. KelleyCook 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProjectLace

Template of Wikiproject lace. The Wikiproject is inactive and the MFD is here/. SLSB talk 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wider attention list and Template:Wider attention

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANVASSING. These templates aren't canvassing, I'm sure everyone is well aware of that. But the previous debate got stuck on that issue for some reason.

A list of issues that require "wider attention" is a good idea. However, we already have at several such lists, to wit WP:RFC and WP:CENT. The problem with having multiple lists is that some people will watch and post at one of them, and some will watch and post at another, and people looking at one list can be quite unaware of the existence of the other. Therefore this defies the entire point of reaching out to people! Putting these issues in a single location will give them far more attention than spreading them out. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep to be clear I wrote the bot that updates these templates. The main goal of them is to get more input on informal discussions or issues that need more attention. This also reduces the need for crossposting a notice to a million different places. one perfect example is for Bot approval group nominations. Bot approval is a low traffic area, and users complain about CABALism and a clear method to avoid that is to get outside input. Also it is designed for smaller issues than RFC's and the other big issues. Radiant in regard to it hindering it, How can an automated list of discussions that have a request for outside help hinder? these templates are generated by a bot. and these templates are just links to current discussions not separate discussions. Also the fact that RFC and CENT are formal pain's and are normally avoided. Going from my BAG reference above why should a user have to file a RFC or a CENT discussion for a simple matter? instead of cross posting a notice of the discussion to multiple boards why not just use an automated listing? Most of the issues that are on the list are not RFC-able or even need a CENT they just need some outside attention. Its not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. β^_command 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. And likewise, RFC is not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. And CENT is also not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. The three are exactly the same! >Radiant< 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not RFC clearly states Before adding an entry here: followed by a set of rules. this clearly means that this is in fact formal. instead its a lot easier and cleaner to use a simple template to attract more input. β^_command 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, the solution is to fix RFC, not fork it. Why not have the bot list things on the RFC page instead of on the template? Problem solved. >Radiant< 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI It appears that the person who proposed the deletion of this template closed the TfD. According to Wikipedia:Deletion process this shouldn't happen- People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest. I don't like the idea of people saying "lets scrap a discussion and start again because I dislike the way this discussion is going". Lurker (said · done) 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that stops discussions from being limited to a small clique is a good idea. And a variety of ways to do this is a good idea too, as issues differ. RFC may not be appropriate for every situation. Lurker (said · done) 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be less vague and give a concrete example of something that RFC is inappropriate for? The issue at hand is that certain people don't seem to understand RFC, and so create a new process. New processes should have been discussed first. >Radiant< 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Italy-new

We don't do permission-only images any more. Only one transclusion, where I have notified the uploader. MER-C 13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the confusing template name (it is definitely not a public domain notice). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseballcube

Just a template that was created a few months ago for a specific source of baseball statistics that has been swallowed up by a more general template. Deprecated and orphaned. Shoot it.--SallyForth123 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Lists

The following film lists may be considered as one.

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my listed opinion (delete) and associated reasoning for the first of these applies to all. Xtifr _tälk 10:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. PC78 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I see no valid reason for deleting this template. Film directors have templates, and "Films by actor" categories have been banned by Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me we cannot have ANY categorization or templating regaridng an actor's work? Templates can be collapsed: I do not accept the argument that it clutters up articles. Until such time that Wikipedia bans all templates and all categories, then templates for actors must rationally be kept. 23skidoo 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The connection between the film and the starring actor(s) is made by linking to that actor. The templates also become bulky as many of these starring actors have been in a lot of films. --Odie5533 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ursula Andress Films

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Ursula Andress. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Ursula Andress filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjani movies

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Isabelle Adjani. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst into the actor article (and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top) and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not surrounded the {{tfd}} tag with <noinclude> tags, so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:De Niro movies

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Robert De Niro. It is currently transcluded in 6 film articles and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor article, a detailed filmography already exists at Robert De Niro filmography. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catherine Deneuve Films

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Catherine Deneuve. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete as unused and redundant to the filmography present in the main article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:02, 6 August 2007 (

Template:Fonda films

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Jane Fonda. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete as unused. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hackman movies

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Gene Hackman. It is currently transcluded in 10 film articles and in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor's article, single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst into the actor article (and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top) and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not surrounded the {{tfd}} tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A handy template, I think. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corey Haim films

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Corey Haim. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A handy template, I think. And I'll put it on more articles, if that's what you want. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider placing them on the film articles. Individual films have dozens of actors and separate filmography templates for each would create enormous clutter. There is a strong precedent for deleting film actor templates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if the man starred in the films? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That information belongs in the article about the man, not in the film article. How is it relevant to the film Cold Mountain that Nicole Kidman starred in The Interpreter? It's a minor connection that is sufficiently made by the fact that the articles on both films link to the Nicole Kidman article, and vice versa. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. This is even worse than movie-by-actor categories, which we absolutely don't allow, see WP:OCAT#Performers by performance. Xtifr _tälk 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Harris Films

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Richard Harris. It is currently transcluded only in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Richard Harris filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A handy template, I think. I'll put it on the articles. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider placing them on the film articles. Individual films have dozens of actors and separate filmography templates for each would create enormous clutter. There is a strong precedent for deleting film actor templates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. This is even worse than movie-by-actor categories, which we absolutely don't allow, see WP:OCAT#Performers by performance. Xtifr _tälk 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Audrey Hepburn

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Audrey Hepburn. It is currently transcluded in 28 film articles and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor article, it already has a detailed filmography. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no valid reason for deleting this template. Film directors have templates, and "Films by actor" categories have already been banned by Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me we cannot have ANY categorization or templating regaridng an actor's work? That's nuts. Plus, with the exception of a few rare films like The Ten Commandments, there would be no more than a few of these for any given film, and as it is, the ability to collapse a template has already been provided. 23skidoo 12:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diane Keaton

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Diane Keaton. It is currently transcluded in 7 film articles (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films of Aamir Khan

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Aamir Khan. It is currently transcluded only on a user talk page (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Ajith in 2006

This is a one-year (for 2006 only) filmography template for a single actor, Ajith Kumar. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wider attention list and Template:Wider attention

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 Okay, let's start again. For some reason this debate got hung up on the issue of canvassing, which is entirely irrelevant. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, a list of issues that require "wider attention" is a good idea. However, we already have at least two such lists, to wit WP:RFC and WP:CENT (not to mention the village pump, which is frequently used for this purpose). By definition, having multiple forums for the same purpose is confusing, and putting these issues in a single location will give them far more attention than spreading them out. >Radiant< 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, with which I am inclined to agree. I presume that the primary rationale for its creation was to provide something that is more visible (being stuck on all the VP pages); a link to RFC would serve that purpose while avoiding the potential for relatively minor issues being listed largely because of the public nature of the list. This system is perhaps a bit too "canvassy". Weak Delete. Adrian M. H. 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete, we should first discuss and propose, as the alternatives provided do not actually cover the same ground: nom didn't try first to discuss his concerns before raising the AfD. In any case, I disagree with it being too "canvasy". It in fact allows two useful things: acts as a type of warning that important issues that go beyond the topic at hand are being discussed and allows for a community-based tagging without the formality of WP:RFC or the usual banality of WP:CENT. And these in turn minimize the temptation for actual canvassing. Thanks!--Cerejota 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. Spreading the word is good, that's why we have noticeboards. However, if there are two noticeboards with the same purpose, the effect is that some people will read and post at one, and others will read and post at the other - in other words, having redundant boards INTERFERES with their function. Hence we should have ONE way of spreading the word. RFC is never supposed to be formal; if it is too formal, let's fix that. CENT is not supposed to be banal; if so, we can fix that. >Radiant< 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Note the AfD notice in the template seems to have been placed incorrectly, and it breaks. Furthermore, this is a multiple page Afd but nom put both titles in header, contrary to instructions. Someone please fix this (I don't want to as I am involved). Thanks!--Cerejota 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that stops discussions from being limited to a small clique is a good idea. And a variety of ways to do this is a good idea too, as issues differ. RFC may not be appropraite for every situation. Lurker (said · done) 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. Spreading the word is good, that's why we have noticeboards. However, if there are two noticeboards with the same purpose, the effect is that some people will read and post at one, and others will read and post at the other - in other words, having redundant boards INTERFERES with their function. Hence we should have ONE way of spreading the word. >Radiant< 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. ... Pharrar 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep to be clear I wrote the bot that updates these templates. The main goal of them is to get more input on informal discussions or issues that need more attention. One cannot canvass without targeting users who support their POV. Asking for a wider input base is exactly what consensus is. This also reduces the need for crossposting a notice to a million different places. one perfect example is for Bot approval group nominations. Bot approval is a low traffic area, and users complain about CABALism and a clear method to avoid that is to get outside input. Also it is designed for smaller issues than RFC's and the other big issues. Radiant in regard to it hindering it, How can an automated list of discussions that have a request for outside help hinder? these templates are generated by a bot. and these templates are just links to current discussions not separate discussions. β^_command 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:DisambigProject

This template is used to tag disambiguation pages for a WikiProject. However, all disambig pages are already tagged with {{disambig}} or related templates and can be easily accessed via categories. Unneeded duplication of effort. — Renata 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep-categorization and pointing to a WikiProject are two very different things. Chris 04:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So spamming thousands of promotional banners on disambig pages is ok? Banners are supposed to help wikiprojects to keep track of stuff: quality issues related to the article. Now that they also advertise the project is just a bonus. Renata 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. These things are not the same. PC78 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Wikipedia:Spam#Wikiproject_advertisement. Renata 11:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as long as it doesn't appear in the main namespace, it's fine. It is considered an unwritten guideline that a wikiproject notice(s) on the top of an article's talk page, not as an assertion of ownership, but rather a pointer to a group of editors who may be know enough about the subject to improve the article. MER-C 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect as per below. MER-C 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signed

Why would this template need to be used, with the four tildes currently standard right now? This template has become obsolete and should be deleted.. GrooveDog (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. (Hey, that rhymes!) Shalom ^Hello 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yo dat's coo dawg, it does rhyme. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete too ~~~~ or to {{unsigned}} depending on context. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is in use but was originally a redirect to the unsigned template. I have reverted to the redirect. Someone can close this. Viridae ^Talk 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 **Exactly. And likewise, RFC is not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. And CENT is also not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. The three are '''exactly the same'''! [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 *** They are not RFC clearly states ''Before adding an entry here:'' followed by a set of rules. this clearly means that this is in fact formal. instead its a lot easier and cleaner to use a simple template to attract more input. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
+****Like I said, the solution is to '''fix''' RFC, not '''fork''' it. Why not have the bot list things on the RFC page instead of on the template? Problem solved. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Possible COI''' It appears that the person who proposed the deletion of this template closed the TfD. According to [[Wikipedia:Deletion process]] this shouldn't happen- ''People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest''. I don't like the idea of people saying "lets scrap a discussion and start again because I dislike the way this discussion is going". [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Anything that stops discussions from being limited to a small clique is a good idea. And a variety of ways to do this is a good idea too, as issues differ. RFC may not be appropriate for every situation. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Lurker|said]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]])</span> 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
+**Please be less vague and give a concrete example of something that RFC is inappropriate for? The issue at hand is that certain people don't seem to understand RFC, and so create a new process. New processes should have been discussed first. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:PD-Italy-new]] ====