Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 15: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:58, 15 March 2007 editFortyfeet (talk \| contribs)3,265 edits →March 15 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:03, 15 March 2007 edit undoRenamedUser2 (talk \| contribs)6,002 edits →[]: '''Comment''' About the spelling: "Dwarfs" and "dwarves" are both right. The original Anglo-Saxon plural was "dwarrow", and there are recorded uses of Next edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:{{lt\|Dwarfs of Krynn}}		:{{lt\|Dwarfs of Krynn}}
	This template is, to my knowledge, no longer used on any pages. Half of the links are red, and the others no longer have articles on them as they have been condensed into one solid dwarf section on the ]. Therefore, it's useless. Incidentally, dwarves is spelled wrong to boot. — '''''<font color="darkblue">]</font><font color="lightblue">]</font>''''' 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)		This template is, to my knowledge, no longer used on any pages. Half of the links are red, and the others no longer have articles on them as they have been condensed into one solid dwarf section on the ]. Therefore, it's useless. Incidentally, dwarves is spelled wrong to boot. — '''''<font color="darkblue">]</font><font color="lightblue">]</font>''''' 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

			* '''Comment''' About the spelling: "Dwarfs" and "dwarves" are both right. The original Anglo-Saxon plural was "dwarrow", and there are recorded uses of "dwarfs" dating back to the 17 century. "Dwarves" began being used in the early 18th century, but was not commonly used until JRR Tolkien started using it. However, it is quite likely that "Dwarves" would be preferred in this context. "Dwarfs" tends to be preferred by grammarians and is often applied to real, living dwarfs. "Dwarves", on the other hand, tends to be preferred by fantasists and is often applied to mythical dwarves. — ] (]\|]) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	==== ] ====		==== ] ====

Revision as of 23:03, 15 March 2007

< March 14	March 16 >

March 15

Template:Myspace name

There is already a myspace template. — Fortyfeet 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Spa

I believe this template encourages biting newbies. As such, it might qualify for speedy deletion, since it could be inflammatory to sensitive newbies. However, a past deletion discussion indicates that many might disagree with me. When new people come to Misplaced Pages, I believe we should welcome them, not make them feel like outsiders.

I believe administrators are perfectly capable of spotting single purpose accounts on their own. After all, AfD is not a vote, and administrators read people's reasons. New users will often write bad reasons, which will alert administrators. And if some new users do write good reasons, do we really care if their opinions are counted?

If you really want to make sure the administrator notices that a user is new, there are better ways. Try putting Welcome to Misplaced Pages in bold while you are welcoming said new user, and I am sure the closing administrator will get the idea.

Another thing that bothers me is that this template is transcluded on many article talk pages, and even a few user talk pages. I cannot see what use it would have in those namespaces. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spa.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC), 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dwarfs of Krynn

This template is, to my knowledge, no longer used on any pages. Half of the links are red, and the others no longer have articles on them as they have been condensed into one solid dwarf section on the List of Dragonlance creatures. Therefore, it's useless. Incidentally, dwarves is spelled wrong to boot. — DoomsDay349 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment About the spelling: "Dwarfs" and "dwarves" are both right. The original Anglo-Saxon plural was "dwarrow", and there are recorded uses of "dwarfs" dating back to the 17 century. "Dwarves" began being used in the early 18th century, but was not commonly used until JRR Tolkien started using it. However, it is quite likely that "Dwarves" would be preferred in this context. "Dwarfs" tends to be preferred by grammarians and is often applied to real, living dwarfs. "Dwarves", on the other hand, tends to be preferred by fantasists and is often applied to mythical dwarves. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:GBmap

Templates now unused, obsoleted by the Template:GBthumb series, which in turn have all but been obsoleted by Template:Location map. — Pit-yacker 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete deprecated template. Gracenotes § 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Usc-title-part-chap

It's unnecessary and not used. Any USC citation to a chapter can already use {{usc-title-chap}}.—Markles 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Usc-title-part-chap allows you to list title/part/chapter while usc-title-chap only allows you to list title/chapter. Is "part" not use for USC citations? -- Jreferee 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uzbekistan Squad 2006 World Cup (FIFA WC06 Game)

The squad does not exist in real world. — Matthew_hk t c 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - surely this is a candidate for a "speedy" deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and there are also loads of other templates that should be up for deletion made by the same user. -- Mattythewhite 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as extreme fancruft. Punkmorten 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Primary source

Appears to violate our No Original Research policy (now part of WP:A), as it invites people to source content in articles themselves, and sign their name, basically, which appears on the article. Or that's how it's being used on the one article which uses this template, Turnpike Doubles. — Xyzzyplugh 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - people should get information from a verifiable source, not themselves. While this may be troublesome if few sources exist, it's a stopgap against widespread innaccuracy. Gracenotes § 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This template seems to be a different way to cite the material in the article. However, it generally is not appropriate to use transcluded templates for citation purposes. -- Jreferee 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean transcluded templates like {{cite book}}? CMummert · talk 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that {{cite book}} is a transcluded template. As far as I am aware, {{cite book}} is not used as a page that is inserted into another page via transclusion. For example, look at footnote 3 of the Albert Einstein article and the Lincoln in art and popular culture section in the Abraham Lincoln article. All the information for the {{cite book}} is within those articles. The information is not inserted into the Albert Einstein or the Abraham Lincoln article from somewhere else. -- Jreferee 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "transcluded template". Looking at the source, {{cite book}} adds punctuation, spacing, and an occasional word or two to the arguments that are passed to the template. I don't know what is usally called transclusion and what isn't. But, the way I read Misplaced Pages:Transclusion, every template call is a transclusion unless subst is used. And subst is certainly inappropriate for {{cite book}}. CMummert · talk 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This template doesn't fit any of the established norms of the manual of style or of WP:ATT. CMummert · talk 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unmaintained

"This page is unmaintained". First, that's redundant with {{historical}}; and second, an awful lot of pages in Wikispace are unmaintained if you look at what the latest edit is in the history. So this template is kind of pointless. >Radiant< 10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Useful for placing on old data dumps, which are still interesting historical data, but are no longer current. ({{historical}} is more for discontinued policies and processes.) --ais523 13:02, 15 March 2007 (U T C)
keep I made this template, as {{historical}} nor {{update}} was applicable to a certain page. historical is more of a discontinued policy/process tag, unmaintained is more in the line for a page that is still important to the project, but may lack vital/correct/updated information. _→AzaToth 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep ~~Delete or Rename~~ - I do not believe that unmaintained is a word. Also, every page on Misplaced Pages is maintained, its just that some pages may have not been revised in a while. --Jreferee 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Additional reasoning - I suspect that the template has little use because the criteria for using the template is not clear. Please refocus the template's use towards those articles that "lack vital/correct/updated information." -- Jreferee 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Useful for the articles, bu could be just called out of date insteadCanadianshoper 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not used on articles because Misplaced Pages does not provide disclaimer templates. Its only use is on Misplaced Pages:Registered bots. --Iamunknown 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ship decommissioned table no

Created in February 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. My guess is this was part of some larger group of templates which has since been deleted – Qxz 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Future Olympics

Created in July 2005 by an anonymous user, edited only to remove a fair-use image. Not used on any pages. Looks like it could potentially have a use, but if there are no articles using it, there's no point keeping it – Qxz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, useless. Terence 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Politician/nospouse

Created in July 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of . Since the {{{spouse}}} parameter in {{Infobox Politician}} is optional, there is no need for this (hence why it is not used) – Qxz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. Just plain useless. Canadianshoper 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ship aircraft box Balao class submarine

Created in January 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of  . My guess is this was part of some larger group of templates which has since been deleted – Qxz 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm guessing that this is part of a set of templates intended to be used to populate an infobox. However, as the Balao class carried no aircraft, it's silly to have a template to populate that field. TomTheHand 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Insert text

Created in June 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of {{{1}}}. Apparently useless – Qxz 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. According to nom. Just a parameter call. No need for transclusion. Especially with parameters. Gracenotes § 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

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 Keep. See SNOW. Jreferee 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC) – Note that this user is not an admin, see WP:ADMIN – Iamunknown 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Listcruft — Aimpples 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Note - this user's second post on Misplaced Pages was this deletion proposal. -- Jreferee 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - In hacker jargon, cruft describes areas of something which are badly designed, poorly implemented or redundant. I contest that this template is well designed and implemented and is far from redundant. It clearly illustrates the convoluted evolution and decline of the modern British Shipbuilding industry, which went from one of the largest in the world to a minor entity in a period of less than 30 years. It covers many very famous names in shipbuilding (i.e Scott Lithgow, at the time the world's largest shipbuilder), Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (important in the social and industrial heritage of Scotland and the UK), the nationalisation and privatisation of the industry into British Shipbuilders and the extant and notable companies i.e BAE Systems (the World's fourth largest defence company.) The alternative is something like this; List of shipbuilders and shipyards. The template covers what that article fails to do in a far more concise manner. Emoscopes 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Emoscopes; a well-designed template that presents a lot of important information in an intuitive way and ties various British shipbuilding company articles together. TomTheHand 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This template has proved a useful source for more than six months, providing a clear, visual guide to the multiple changes in the British shipbuilding industry since the 1960s. It has recently undergone a massive re-working which in my opinion has resulted in an even better template. I find it odd that somebody's first act as a registered Wikipedian would be to try and remove an item of clear importance to maritime historians. --Harlsbottom 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - per Emoscopes, TomTheHand and Harlsbottom above. Couldn't agree more with them. M0RHI | Talk to me 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Hate to be the person saying, "ditto", but what else is there to add? Novium 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I am astounded that this has been listed for deletion. I'm sorry to say the user listing it for deletion obviously doesn't know much about this subject and therefore should think twice about getting involved in deciding what is relevant or otherwise to its coverage on Misplaced Pages. The evolution of British shipbuilding companies is incredibly complicated and I commend the user who has created this template for providing an extremely useful visual representation of the history and, at the same time, an extremely navigable one. Mark83 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. --Saintrain 18:29, 15 March 2007 (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.

Template:Football team

Only used on one page, could probably be redirected to one of the other football team infoboxes, or its single occurence replaced with one of those infoboxes and then deleted – Qxz 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is already a football club infobox, here. - Nick C 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Clothing

"Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page" (WP:TMP). This template, however, seems never to have been used (c.f. Special:Contributions), is unnecessary for the simple text it contains, and does not appear to be useful. I personally have never encountered a time where I intended to say, "This is a type of clothing that goes on your feet." — Iamunknown 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Airline

"Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page" (WP:TMP). This template, however, seems to have only ever been used once (c.f. Special:Contributions) (it was used in Image:0548439.jpg; I removed it), is unnecessary for the simple text it contains, and does not appear to be useful. I personally have never encountered a time where I intended to say, "This aircraft has an airline mark on it." — Iamunknown 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, useless template. Unlikely to be used. Terence 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Viewers

There is no company "Viewers Like You," so there can be no employee of "Viewers Like You", so there can exist no public domain content created by such a non-existent employee. And *poof* the template vanishes in a puff of logic ... or, goes through tfd and then vanishes by using Special:Delete. :P — Iamunknown 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)