Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 18



February 18, 2006

 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CAC 40 companies
This template has a scope of containing all companies in the CAC 40 stock market index. However its existence is unnecessary as Category:CAC 40 already serves this purpose. A link to the category CAC 40 takes up far less space on the article than the template, and occurs automatically by being included in the category. As having both on an article page is redundant, only the category should exist. Kurieeto 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this navigational template (an article series box) violates the guidelines of Categories, lists, and series boxes, which state that if the answer to the question "Is a given article in the series likely to mention the article before or after it in the series outside of the box?" is no, then "a category or list is probably more appropriate". Kurieeto 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep In my experience, a user is more likely to find other articles through a template as opposed to a category. In many cases, category lists are simply ignored. I think templates are much more useful. --Horses In The Sky 16:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: From Categories, lists, and series boxes, also known as navigational templates:
 * "Is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in the series?
 * Is a given article in the series likely to mention the article before or after it in the series outside of the box?
 * Are the elements of the box all going to generate articles substantial enough that the box will not look like an unmanageable blight on an otherwise tidy computer monitor?
 * If the answer to any of these questions is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate."
 * I would view this template as answering the above questions as "Yes, No, Yes", respectively. Please consider this as a further argument for the template's deletion given that a category is most suitable for its scope. Kurieeto 17:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Navigational templates are a better way of displaying information than categories, which have to be clicked through to even see (and still aren't as nicely organized). Nuff said.  -- Cyde Weys  17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundancy seems to be unhelpful, and the category seems more appropriate. Michael Ralston 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category and the list on the CAC 40 page seem better suited. Flowerparty ■ 06:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Use the Category instead. Kwertii 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple competing and contrasting organizational methods is good and positive in the organization of data. WAS 4.250 04:34, 24 February 2006 (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.


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kraftprod
This template has a scope of containing all brands of Kraft Foods. However its existence is entirely unnecessary as Category:Kraft brands already serves this purpose. A link to the category Kraft brands takes up far less space on the article than including the template. Only the category should exist. Kurieeto 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this navigational template (an article series box) violates the guidelines of Categories, lists, and series boxes, which state that if the answer to the question "Is a given article in the series likely to mention the article before or after it in the series outside of the box?" is no, then "a category or list is probably more appropriate". Kurieeto 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Navigational templates are a better way of displaying information than categories, which have to be clicked through to even see (and still aren't as nicely organized). Nuff said.  -- Cyde Weys  17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Categories seem preferred for browsing per the guidelines, and we surely don't need both. Michael Ralston 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you think about the average reader, the navigational template is better than a category. --Thorri 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia should not have corporate distinctions take precedence on the article space. Food type templates instead. WAS 4.250 04:37, 24 February 2006 (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.


 * 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 Shanel 06:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Barnstar
The template only contains an image tag, I see no logical reason why this is needed → Aza Toth 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nominator. There's nothing in this template that can't be replicated easily through copy & paste. If you're giving out a Barnstar, it would seem polite to put a bit more effort in than simply using a cookie-cutter template. Chairman S.  |  Talk  11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know a whole lot about templates, but it seems to me that you'll mess up a whole lot of people's user pages if you delete the Barnstar template and many of those people might not know how to redo the Barnstars someone awarded them in non-template form. TomTheHand 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Subst: and delete - Doesn't save much typing. On Barnstars, the "What to type" column could easily be changed to show a copy-able image tag, rather than the template call. -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a template that is used for substing, and it helps saves users time. Why should it be deleted?  Is it taking up too much database space or something?  Please.  And I don't see how copy&paste is "better" than this ... where are you going to copy from?  You'll have to go back to a Barnstars page and copy the text from there instead of just using subst:barnstar?  Please.  There's no reason to inconvenience people like that.  -- Cyde Weys  17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I forgot, as of consensus, this template equals award → Aza Toth 17:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It allows a user to align barnstars in a more orderly fashion. I mean it is possible to get them from left or right without using {| . Great Template --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per TomThe Hand. Removing it could annoy a lot of people. --Bduke 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as outlined above. Its deletion could be disruptive on a massive scale. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE that this template would NOT be deleted without first arranging for the code it contains to be substituted directly into the pages on which it appears. When a template is simply deleted, it is ALWAYS removed from usage first. -Splash talk 03:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful template. Jtkiefer T   04:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unnecessary revisionism. Most users use it. Also, I see no consensus on Template talk:Award for deleting this. If this is to be deleted because a simple copy-paste can replicate it, I don't see why award should be retained as well, as a simple typing operation would replicate it easily. --Gurubrahma 07:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Gurubrahma. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was interesting. This template was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the template still exists, was this an attempt at humor? Radio  Kirk   talk to me  07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The result of the debate was keep. MarkSweep ignored it. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So is the discussion over? We need an admin to close it, no? Anyways, I agree with the keep agreements above. Keep this one for ease of use.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManka (talk • contribs) — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep' --Ter e nce Ong 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- while a very small template, it makes life a lot easier, I'm in favour of keeping it. Tawker 06:25, 24 February 2006 (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.


 * 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 moot - speedy deleted by MarkSweep (enough) - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Chavez
POV, and does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia. I really hate doing this but similar userboxes have been deleted in the past. James Bond 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - There is absolutely nothing divisive about this userbox and userpages do not fall under NPOV. --Dragon695 02:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why does it need to help write an encyclopedia? It's a userbox. MiraLuka 04:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Oh, light. Maybe I should create a userbox with the text "This user supports Wikipedia" and nominate it for deletion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keepper dragon, MiraLuka. props to Cuivië for being whitty. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since that seems to be the chosen (or unilaterally decreed) fate of userboxes supporting/opposing political points of view. It's either all stay or all go as far as I'm concerned. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Could someone explain why it has been deleted when all but one vote is to keep it? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who makes the call on actually deleting the userboxes? Is what I read above an actual vote, or just peoples concerns?  --myselfalso 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and any template (or article, or image) which fits a speedy deletion criterion or which is otherwise blatently in breach of policy may be deleted regardless. Physchim62 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions.  T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic.  It is one thing to say you support something.  It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right.  The former is not divisive while the later is.  Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. helohe (talk)  13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep M o e   ε  03:27, 25 February 2006 (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.


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Headgear
This template is just a catagory Jon513 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Might be useful to some people.--KrossTalk 20:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst it is a strange topic for a template, I don;t really think it needs deletion. Chairman S.  |  Talk  21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Serves little purpose as a template, while there's already a category that's perfectly relevant. And some of the things listed on it aren't in the headgear category - seemly because they're in a subcategory. Thus, why should they be possessed of the template? Michael Ralston 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've used it before and although it is not as useful as some other templates I've seen it still serves a purpose. Sotakeit 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find it borderline but it's probably useful in some cases. When I look at the guidelines for TfD I don't see a clear reason that this should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Still helps  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is a navigational template which provides a context and sequence for navigation between related articles. This is one of the intended uses for templates: there is no good reason for deleting it. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Michael Ralston. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's usefulness is diminished since categories are available, which is all this template serves. Snafflekid 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Still a useful nav tool. JonMoore 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Michael Ralston. Kwertii 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ugly and not useful; categories do the same job less obtrusively for those who need to compulsively group things. PeteVerdon 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'm flabbergasted how anyone could nominate this template for deletion. It is widely used, a superb link between articles and an ideal navigational tool. Not alone IMHO is this nomination absurd in the extreme, posting that ruddy great deletion deletion line has managed to screw up large numbers of articles, with text pushed off to the side. One feature article is now an unreadable mess thanks to that. As to that stuff about "those who need to compulsively group things" &mdash; that is what encyclopaedias do!!! They link things by topic and category. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories would suit this topic much better than a template. -Zimbabweed 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep So what that categories can also do the job. It is a good thing to have more than one way to do things. Multiple competing and contrasting organizational methods is good and positive in the organization of data. WAS 4.250 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very useful. Deltabeignet 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a navagation box for moving around the main topics of a subject. Categories serve a slightly different purpose (they categorise articles), and are not always useful when browsing. SeventyThree(Talk) 08:39, 25 February 2006 (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.