Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

edit

Template:Infobox tornado outbreak EF

edit
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. IronGargoyle 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tornado outbreak EF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have modified {{Infobox tornado outbreak}} to allow it to work for the new Enhanced Fujita Scale. This template is now redundant.↔NMajdan•talk 18:39, 26 February 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 page.

Template:Pretoria infobox

edit
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. IronGargoyle 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pretoria infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

By its nature, template could only be used on one article, Pretoria. Coding for template has been moved to article. --Nyttend 18:30, 26 February 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 page.

Template:Tornado Chart EF

edit
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. IronGargoyle 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tornado Chart EF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have modified {{Tornado Chart}} so it can now be used with the Fujita Scale and the new Enhanced Fujita Scale. This template is now redundant. --↔NMajdan•talk 16:54, 26 February 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 page.

Template:Stn art lnk

edit
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. This template does not provide indiscriminate information, but rather valuable external resources that we do not host here. The nomination also seems to have been withdrawn midway through, though nobody bothered closing it at that time. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stn art lnk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is used to link to timetables, providing a travel guide like information, nominated as per: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, with amendments - Providing station information from the National Rail database is not a timetable - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but it is an encyclopaedic source, and linking to the National Rail Database is linking to an authoritative reference. Regarding the multimap.com links - these should be put to Wikimapia, and not multimap. Aside from this, there is little justification in the TfD. The primary reason for having these links are as they are the official sources of information, to justify these pages. M0RHI | Talk to me 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Regardless of the authoritative nature of the National Rail Database, of which the timetable is linked to, not information related to the station, articles should not link to travel guide type destinations as it currently does; official council tourist boards are authoritative in their field but do not constitute a valid link to be edited in pages. Similarly, linking to Wikimapia is equally narrow and the coordinates part is adequately is not brilliantly done by {{coor title dms}} which Template:Stn art lnk does in a very clumsy way.
    • The part of the template that is adequate does it in a clumsy way and is only a pale version of an existing template (see above), the part that is not adequate for use on Wikipedia is simply to be removed. The template has therefore no use. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indiscriminate information would be duplicating the timetables on Wikipedia. This is just a link to an official source of information about a train station. This falls well within the guidelines of WP:EL. —Dgiest c 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per Dgies -- EdJogg 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This provides links to useful information which adds to the article. Yes Wikipedia is not a timetable, but that is why it is linked not included in the article. If you want to use {{coor title dms}} then add it in addition to this template as both are useful. The direct link to MultiMap is helpful in this context because its quick and appropriate for UK stations. Could Captain Scarlet clarify which point of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information he is nominating this template for deletion under? Also could I suggest he doesn't remove this from articles whilst this discussion about the template is ongoing. Adambro 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add that there is not a Wikipedia is not a timetable guideline or policy. This has been proposed but not officially adopted. This means, I would suggest, that the community hasn't reached an agreement on this. I don't think the edits such as you made to Garforth railway station are justified or explained by your summary "Clean up services: Wikipedia is not a timetable". I don't believe that a summary of services such as what you removed constitutes a timetable, the proposed policy doesn't seem to be clear as to what does either. I think this is useful information. I have seen articles which include the minutes of departures which I agree should be removed though. Adambro 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template was removed from two article on the gorunds of duplication of information, would you prefer I put this one back in and remove Template:Infobox UK station, the latter presents the same information ommitting the timetable part. I sence emotional attachement to a template that should not exist. FAO: Adambro: points two and five of the WP:NOT#IINFO. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I appreciate your intentions, I don't think it is necessary to remove it on grounds of duplication. I think it is appropriate to have it both in the external links and in the infobox. The suggestion that I might prefer you to have removed the infobox puzzles me somewhat. This would obviously be undesirable. Thank you for highlighting the points in WP:NOT#IINFO as I asked, but I fail to see how either prevents us from using this template. I also fail to "sence emotional attachement" to this template. Adambro 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know categories follows a few rules, one of them is avoiding redundancy, or duplicating data. I see templates, article, anything the same way. If a piece of information is present twice, one of the instances goes regardless of a specific rule existing. I believe I have accuratly quoted rules present and I don‘t see there being any place to interpret them. The template clearly shows information already present in an infobox (which is used and used again) and there is no need to have the information duplicated. If you do not wish this template to be deleted or remove them you must want the station infobox to be deleted, it‘s one or the other, not both. I am currenly not permitted to go forward with the deletion if this template which in my view is an utter waste of space and other than showing timetables and a link to multimap (exclusive linking, is that advertising?) is of no use. There really is nothing worthy of retaining in this template that isn‘t done in another template. I will admit that the coordinates could be showed in the station infobox along with a link to station information which is currently present. Additionaly, the information present on the National Rail doesnt really fit an encyclopedia as it relates to toilet, lifts, restaurant information, which to some degree is comparable to travel guide information. To be honnest, I can probably do with deleting this template from articles due to the duplication of information and or finding better ways to show information, I‘m simply trying to do things properly. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please be civil. Secondly, I did read your comments (but see below). Third, surely how users use the template should be crucial in whether it is kept or not.
As regards to duplication, my personal preference would be to keep this and destroy the coords system, which I find irritating in the extreme. However I quite accept that other people may prefer it, so I'm happy for both to appear - one at the top and one at the bottom. The two systems seem to complement, not duplicate, each other.– Tivedshambo (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (and forget this VfD ever happened) - this template simply links to the National Rail website and Multimap.com which give more specific information regarding the station and its location. If these aren't relevant external links for an article about a railway station, I don't know what is. Andrew (My talk) 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw this TfD as the sheer deletion manifesto has been ignored by each and everyone of the votes. This template is whatever you gentlemen may say, out of bounds of what Wikipedia is, in bold: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TIMETABLE ! The unsigned comment was left by someone extremely anoyed who was under a lot restraint managed not to swear in his comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 February 2007
I'm shocked by how quickly this issue has developed, it seems that a clear consensus has been reached but it seems Captain Scarlet suggests he will ignore this. If, as he wishes, this TfD is concluded, he should be able to see that most editors want to keep this template, the implication of which being that removing it from articles would be unconstructive, go against the consensus, and ultimately could lead to his account been blocked.
Captain Scarlet has emphasised his point that 'Wikipedia is not a timetable' and also assumed some contributers haven't taken time to study the issue (User talk:M0RHI#stn_art_lrnk). I would suggest this is not the case but also question whether he has failed to read my comments regarding 'Wikipedia is not a timetable'. There is no such policy or guideline and the proposed draft does not define what timetable information is.
I won't repeat the concerns of other editors but would highlight the latest comments by M0RHI (signed 06:33, 28 February 2007), and those by Tivedshambo on Captain Scarlet's talk page as being of particular importance.
Captain scarlet has admitted in his last comment here that he has strugled to remain civil and follow talk page etiquette, maybe he needs a Wikibreak. Adambro 09:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is indeed not a timetable, but that's no reason why we shouldn't link to an official one; similarly, there's nothing wrong with the link to station information. Clearly these links belong in the External links section. (Also, the link to the train times in {{Infobox UK station}} at present is not satisfactory: the external link is labelled as "Station code", and is somewhat hidden, while there is no direct link to the station information.) As far as the map links go, maybe this could be replaced with a better one. As far as I know, the current one to multimap is used because it can use the postcode system to locate the station in question, and station postcodes are readily available. To use co-ordinates (either UK grid referencing or latitude/longitude) would require a lot of work, finding out this information for all 2000 stations. In the mean time, the existing map link should stay, as a link to one particular mapping site is more useful than none at all. --RFBailey 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with the majority of what RFBailey has said. As we are discussing external links, we can be more relaxed about WP:NOT and instead focus on the external links guidelines. Regarding the concerns about MultiMap, the guidelines say we should avoid "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" but I don't think this is the case with MultiMap. WP:EL also says that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be considered. In this case, WP:NOT probably rules out timetable info but WP:EL allows us to link to this is it will be useful for the reader. Adambro 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Links to a full descriptive page on National Rail website "station infomation". I'd much prefer to see this linked to, rather than instead replicated in the article. The Street map and aerial photo are also perfectly valid links. The live departures does no harm. I seem to remember before this template was introduced a variety of editors added the same link individually and in a variety of styles, so it is better for it to be consistent and regulated by having a template. MRSC • Talk 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Very useful link to those who want more info - "Wikipedia is not a timetable," which is why the information isn't included in the article! Jobie29 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find these external links both useful and acceptable. Much more so than the rambling Rail Route tables that appear at the foot of British station articles which, in my opinion, often do duplicate information and are used by many as a timetable substitute. Geof Sheppard 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superstrong keep. This template does not add timetable-like information to articles. It links to external pages that deserve to be linked to according to the external links policy. There are many templates like this on Wikipedia, and so there should be. JPD (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; what other comments can be made but per above? Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can understand the nomination, it does in a way duplicate information. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but this is useful and related information. I put it to the mother test - would a random member of the public find the template useful. And yes, they do. If Captain Scarlett wants to have this removed then he should rework the existing station infobox so that "station code" is an obvious link to train times from that station and ideally does contain more information about the station itself. Until then, I vote we keep useful content.--Notorious Biggles 21:27, 5 March 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 page.

Template:Underdiscussion

edit
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Underdiscussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This policy or guideline is under discussion on its talk page". Well, so are most of them, that's what talk pages are there for. I entirely fail to see the point of this template. >Radiant< 10:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the nominator sabotaged the template immediately after nominating it for deletion.[2] I have reverted it to the previous version. Dhaluza 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it should also be noted that immediately before nominating the template for deletion at 10:12, the nominator removed the tag from the WP:N guideline page at 10:11,[3] escalating an edit war that ultimately resulted in the page being protected[4]. Dhaluza 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful for when "disputed" is a bit strong, but it may alter soon. Adam Cuerden talk 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reword it, since the current wording is useless, but something to say "hey, we're in the process of changing something", without having to say that there's a dispute, is nice. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then at least merge it with that "dispute" thing. This is just another attempt to make guidelines that people don't like look weaker than they actually are. Many talk pages have heavy traffic, that is nothing special. >Radiant< 10:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this template provides a "non-nuclear option" that is less extreme than the {{disputedtag}} tag, and can be a reasonable compromise when editors want some acknowledgment of their concerns while a reasonable compromise is worked out on the talk page. Dhaluza 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a bad idea to me. There is always discussion about a guideline. Either use the "disputed" banner, or a "rewrite" banner, but this is just too euphamistic. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepA very useful template for focusing discussion--is used heavily in the current drive to revise some of the basic N articles.DGG 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This tag is a useful middle-ground between saying that a guideline has complete support and saying that its premise is currently under question, as the {{disputedtag}} tag does. Sure, every guideline is always under discussion, but when that discussion becomes active and starts to point toward a lack of consensus, it is applicable--a form of caution to those using the guidline (and an implicit invitation to join the discussion). -- Black Falcon 18:38, 3 March 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 page.

Template:Bondpedia Award

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bondpedia Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Award for wiki which doesn't even have an article. NN and maybe SPAM. --Smmurphy(Talk) 05:01, 26 February 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 page.

Template:Db-reason

edit
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 Speedy keep, template is a key part of WP:SPEEDY, and there seems to be some misunderstanding about it's use. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-reason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary template. All standard speedy deletion reasons have their own templates with default verbiage. This template allows people to nominate articles for deletion for reasons that fall outside of the speedy deletion guidelines (i.e. junk, neologism, etc.). --NMChico24 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many other reasons that don't fall into the specific speedy categories for requests for speedy deletions. In fact, I was directed here because of an article that was mis-titled, I moved it, and the new "redirect" page was an unlikely typo... No specific category for getting rid of that, and no need to tie up RfD with something clear like that. I think that the reason that this was nominated is the reason it should be kept, because it does allow people to nominate not just articles; redirects, disambig pages, images, etc., for speedy deletion that sometimes don't fall strictly into the speedy deletion criteria, but fall into the overall category nonetheless. SkierRMH 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User-strong keep in fuzzy bunny slippers: this template allows people to give details. For example, if someone puts a {{db-banned}} on a page, they can do so much better by placing {{db-reason|Created by [[User:XXX]], a banned user, after he was banned.}} How the hell is an admin going to guess what sort of housekeeping is required for a WP:CSD#G6? Finally, admins going through CAT:CSD should be completely familiar with the criteria at WP:CSD; an extremely useful tool shouldn't deleted just because some people don't know how to use it correctly. I don't mean any offense, but this template is important, and I use it all the time (correctly) on NP patrol. The best thing to do is go to the tagger's page and suggest that they do AFD or PROD, since that page doesn't meet a speedy deletion criteria. GracenotesT § 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something to bring up on WP:CSD or some other related page before bringing it to TfD. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 26 February 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 page.

Template:User atheist a

edit
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User atheist a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently a typo. No links. — Randall Bart 19:47, 26 February 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 page.

Template:User ateist

edit
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ateist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly a typo. No links. — Randall Bart 19:47, 26 February 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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_26&oldid=1138691457"