Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 11

May 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Template:GFDL-presumed-ca

Unneeded license template - all images using it have been obsoleted by Commons images with better licenses.. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reqphotoin

Reqphotoin is redundant to {{Reqphoto}}, a better-designed template.— GregManninLB (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - It's been used since time immemorial, is used all the time, and it's always better to keep templates that are easy for editors (including long-time editors) to remember, without adding stipulations for many additional parameters, characters that must be added, etc. Don't fix something that isn't broken. Badagnani (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template is used a lot.--Jerrch 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are too many overlapping templates, confusing to new contributors. The reqphoto is more effective as it should encourage people to also add a subject/topic as well as location. Being in more than one request category increases the chance of having the request addressed.

Comment - The above unidentified editor seems not to realize that this template is used to specify from where a photo is required: for example: "reqphotoin|Michigan." This is not confusing. Badagnani (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar

Redundant to Template:Politics of the Republic of China. — Jerrch 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion It's not redundant though. The other template is a collapsing bottom navigation. This one proposed is a top right infobox. IMHO, a primary topic would use the infobox and a secondary article would use the collapse. A particularly long article might even use both. I don't care if it is deleted if there is some style reason to deprecate infoboxes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Template:GFDL-presumed-ast

Unneeded license template.. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that it's unneeded. I see that, before anyone informed me, it was removed from the various images on which I had placed it and those were all marked for deletion. Could someone please properly explain what is going on here? How is it "unneeded" if its removal is causing the deletion of multiple images? And shouldn't someone have asked me what this was about (if it was at all unclear) before first removing this from everywhere I used it? - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was only used on one image (at least when I checked) and that image is also on the Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fertility awareness

Nominating for deletion: this template does not satisfy WP:NPOV and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement. Authoritative sources such as the World Health Organization ([1] see the third page, although it is labeled "Page 1") and the publication Contraceptive Technology [2] (which is considered "The most authoritative source... for comparing the effectiveness of various methods of birth control" [3]) classify calendar-based methods as types of fertility awareness. This template is being used to push the POV that calendar-based methods are not fertility awareness. Lyrl^Talk _C 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is is problematic to state either way regarding the rhythm method. But I'm not sure that means we need to delete the template. But then again, how could we make a template that doesn't say the rhythm method is FA on the one hand, while saying it is on the other? Maybe create a column saying "disputed methods"? Or maybe we need a more broad template like "natural birth control" which would cover more than just FA? Hmm... if people like the idea of changing the scope of the template, I'd support a renaming and reworking (which is basically a vote for delete, in a manner of speaking).-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO and CT are simply misusing the term. They describe the rhythm method as a "fertility-awareness-based method", yet the fertility awareness methods were developed decades after the rhythm method! How can the rhythm method be "based" in fertility awareness if rhythm came first? I don't see how the rhythm method can be considered a form of "fertility awareness" when there is no actual "awareness", just guessing. Whistling42 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all fine and dandy as a personal opinion. However, everyone knows that anyone can edit wikipedia. We have to assume that a reliable, verifiable source (in this case the leading world health body, the WHO), knows more than some anonymous person on the internet. Per NPOV, we can't ignore notable views and take sides on an issue. Saying one way or the other would be taking sides, so we'll need to come up with a solution that skirts that issue, or otherwise makes it clear that there are multiple valid views on the topic. I see no grounding in policy to make a judgement call to ignore the WHO (or CT), but I could be missing something. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sin

This nomination also includes Template:Cos and Template:DegreeToRadian

I have to admit that the unit circle example in the documentation is pretty cool, but this template is ultimately not used and not very useful. I mean, when are we going to have to calculate the sine of a number on demand in the process of building an encyclopedia? And if we ever need to, we already have {{#expr:sin(x)}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to {{#expr:sin(x)}}. asenine ^{say what?} 10:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coat of arms of Africa

Redundant of {{Africa topic}}. — -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not redundant. Its very much in use. Mangwanani (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This template should not be deleted. {{Africa topic}} is a meta-template designed to allow the creation of templates such as {{Coat of arms of Africa}} (for others, see Template:Africa topic#Templates implemented with Africa topic). Although {{Africa topic}} is also used directly in articles (in the format {{Africa topic|Economy of}}), that usage can create inconsistencies in how the template is implemented on each page. Eventually most those will probably have their own templates, similar to what has been done with {{Europe topic}} (see Template:Europe topic#Templates implemented with Europe topic). -- Zyxw (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL image description

Unused license template, redundant to {{GFDL}}. — Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-1.2

License template obsoleted by {{GFDL}}. The three images that use it have all been moved to Commons and will be deleted here shortly. — Kelly ^hi! 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]