Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11

Template:Inducks character

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and inappropriate link template as the INDUCKS site appears to have no regard for copyright laws and contains a wealth of copyrighted images. See the Goofy article as an example. A template would encourage these links, which go against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding honoring of copyrights.. Collectonian (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You can read "The pictures on this website are the property of Disney and are not part of Inducks." at the bottom of the pages and INDUCKS is a very well known database so I think they know what they do. I think it is okey to link to it just like we link to imbd and others databases with copyrighted pictures, isn't it? If it is okey to link to that page I definitely think we should keep the template, Inducks is the "standard" database for disney comics, characters etc, and it will help to get a consistent look. Skizzik (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The site is a poorly made fansite. Don't need a template for it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the site are so poor? Inducks provides a lot of useful information, when and where comics are published, lists of comics with the characters etc. Information that not belongs on wikipedia but many readers of the articles probobly are interested in. The same reason there is links to imdb in almost every film articles? And there is templates for imdb titles etc so what is the difference? Skizzik (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I wrote elsewhere, all images are actually hosted at a different webiste, Outducks, to which COA (the main Inducks search engine) links. The images on Outducks (not Inducks) are thumbnails or panels and are hosted under fair use (just like many images on Wikipedia). The texts can not be read, and the images are provided for the purpose of identification only. Inducks is indeed a "fan website", but a "good one" I might say, with data (80,000 publication indexed) that can be found nowhere else. I think Skizzik's comparison (imdb) is a good one. The Inducks model in the French WP here is used a lot and is very useful, I think, for Wikipedia visitors. Similar links are found on the Italian, Danish etc. wikis and have been added/created by many different users. Herve661 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (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:Infobox Rugby Union biography

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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of {{Infobox Rugby biography}}, which is already used in over 1000 articles Bob (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Rugby league to Rugby Union, as per discussions with a number of users to move away from the depricated one that is in use. A move to clean up and align with soccer, cricket, rugby league, etc.Londo06 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide a link stating that {{Infobox Rugby biography}} is depricated. Also provide a link to the discussion from which this conclusion was reached. --Bob (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had a brief look through but couldn't find the link where the rugby infobox was referred to as depricated. There are only subtle differences between the rugby league and Rugby Union infobox, I honestly believe that the newly created one shows information in a cleaner fashion. Both versions require work on their syntax and I don't believe that the rugby infobox is depricated (sp?), just inferior in terms of information presentation. Both cricket and rugby league have adopted this style of infobox for the clarity of information. I suggest it be used and the syntax worked upon so that it can please everyone. Londo06 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Had I known this template existed before today, I would have used it in all the rugby biographies I have created. I believe that this template should be used for rugby union players, and {{Infobox rugby league biography}} should be used for rugby league players, and any players who played both codes should have two infoboxes. {{Infobox Rugby biography}} is the one that should be deleted. – PeeJay 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox rugby league biography}} and {{Infobox Rugby Union biography}} are byte-for-byte identical (except for the TfD notice at the top of the rugby union one). --Stormie (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Fair enough. I would prefer it if {{Infobox Rugby biography}} could be cleaned up a bit though. – PeeJay 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep - The infobox is a Rugby Union one. It should be the point from which we work to improve the infobox. The old infobox was not the cleanest, whilst there are improvements on the updated old infobox it still falls short of the one that is being recommended for deletion. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The standard infobox used by WikiProject Rugby union is {{Infobox Rugby biography}}. May as well have all rugby union biographical articles use the same template. There is no way we should not be using {{Infobox Rugby biography}} unlike what some people have said, and although there have been discussions on how to improve the template at the WikiProject, it's absurd to suggest it's depreciated. - Shudde ^talk 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - after going through my recent history I noticed a change to a number of pages that I have edited. There is not much noticeable difference. I think calling the rugby one depricated is a bit harsh, it's just not that clear, even with the updates. I would look to work on the syntax of the Rugby Union one to fix for dual code players and provincial players. Overrall I shall still be adding on the newly name Rugby Union infobox as that one is cleaner, easier to read and displays more information. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no need to do that as {{Infobox Rugby biography}} already copes fine with dual code players and provincial players and has been in service since August 2006 whereas this one, {{Infobox Rugby Union biography}}, was created in the past week, byte for byte identical to {{Infobox rugby league biography}} as a result of an edit war so that the user could get his or her own way. Normally, we edit an existing template rather than create another one to do the same job... --Bob (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - the issue with {{Infobox Rugby biography}} for me is it really isn't clear. The Rugby Union one has that clarity so I would venture it would worth investigating that further. I just use it, filling in the fields, I would recommend someone work (on either and both) through the syntax to improve them.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (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:AA Gent Squad

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template has the same purpose as the template at Template:K.A.A. Gent squad, only this one is not used at all while the other one is. So redundant and not used... — Pelotas^talk 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, redundant and therefore useless. ><RichardΩ6 12 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and not used. What a couple. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant & unused. SkierRMH (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (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:Or hist navigation

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, not needed, not used anywhere on mainspace. As per month-old discussion at WP:OREGON, subsumed by the following templates after they were converted to the standard Template:Navbox formatting and consensus was reached at WP:OREGON:

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - this one seems effectively deprecated. Happy‑melon 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - deprecated @ this point. SkierRMH (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (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:Oregon History

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, not needed, also not used anywhere on article mainspace, subsumed by:

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - this is subjective, and redundant. Happy‑melon 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (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:Oregon History Eras

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, not needed, subsumed by:

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for the moment - this template's use on a number of articles does not really support the claim of redundancy. If the consensus of WP:ORE is that this template is unnecessary, why is it still utilised? Happy‑melon 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It was spammed onto a bunch of articles within the last 24 hours, so naturally it looks like it is heavily used. That does not necessarily reflect anything. Cirt (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A template made out of templates is bizarre. Comment to Happy-melon, WP:ORE hasn't necessarily reached consensus, though individual members have commented here and many are puzzled by the need for this template. As far as its usage, the template was created out of process and wasn't in use until a few days ago, when its creator appended it to many articles. Katr67 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates within templates [while they may take up less space on an article] unnecessarily increase complexity and this one is most certainly unneeded. ><RichardΩ6 12 10:39, 13 January 2008 (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:ORHistoryEras

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, not needed, also not used anywhere on article mainspace, subsumed by:

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this one as an unused duplication of {{Oregon History Eras}} above. Happy‑melon 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per above discussion. Katr67 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (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:Oregon Brief History

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, not needed, subsumed by:

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Even though I was actively involved in the discussion, I'm not sure I see a clear consensus, or even understand what the choices are of which templates we could be using. I tend to think that at least "Brief History" might be useful, it is substantially different from the more comprehensive and more specific ones. Cirt, can you introduce this issue a little more thoroughly, and clarify what your vision for the Oregon template collection is, and why these don't fit into it? -Pete (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further points

I see no need to have a template on a page except one of the four above.Cirt (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Brief History"? It's much easier to determine what history fits into what period of time, as opposed to what someone feels should be included in "Brief History".Cirt (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Brief History" template occurs in many instances directly above or below one of these other templates. In these cases, the template is redundant, and includes virtually all of the same links as the other template.Cirt (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The four other templates noted above focus the topic more, and concentrate links within the time period and subject of the article. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example - see Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition. Does having this additional template serve any real purpose that the other more focused template does not? Wouldn't it simply be better to have a more comprehensive article instead of template at History of Oregon, and just have a link to that article in the See also section? Cirt (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the further explanation. At the moment, I will oppose the deletion of Brief History, because I believe it will take Wikiproject Oregon and other regular editors of Oregon-related articles a while to determine what the best system is; this is a very effective group, with many editors currently engaged in discussion on related issues, but it is often a slow-moving group. I think the timeframe of a TfD will be pointlessly restrictive on an otherwise productive, consensus-oriented process. -Pete (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - the template's fairly wide use does not really support claims of redundancy. If the consensus of WP:ORE editors is that the template is redundant, why is it still in use? Happy‑melon 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It was spammed onto a bunch of articles within the last 24 hours, so naturally it looks like it is heavily used. That does not necessarily reflect anything. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep It seems to be in use and "brief" is not a redundant classification seen in any other of the OR templates. Seems unnecessary though as "brief" is not clear about the limits that could divide "brief" from "not brief" Travtim^(Talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (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.