Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 27



Template:2008 Fiesta Bowl Champions

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been consistently against navigation boxes such as this one. It's clutters up the pages it's on, and serves virtually no purpose. —  Grsz  talk  21:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason it should be kept as it represents one of the best teams in WVU history, as they were ONE win away from the National title game.  Cra sh U  nderride  21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The greatness of the team should not be the determining factor in whether this template is kept or deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think that every one of these 99 players is notable. The names can be put in a list or a category, not in  a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If similar templates are created for every kind of championship, some players will soon have an unmanagable number of templates added to its articles. And there is really no need to navigate between this specific set of players. --Kildor (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A notable season is surely to be mentioned on all the players', coaches' etc pages, so, the template is redundant, even if there were not already a strong wikipedia precedent to delete season-by-season templates such as this. Neier (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant per Neier, and will never be void of redlinks, as many players listed don't meet the notability guidelines.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete John (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (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 section.

Template:Chinese

 * 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 Speedy Keep OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I came upon this template at Nanking Massacre I almost balked. This is an infobox intended to present linguistic aspects of the name of the article, yet it takes on the guise of a general infobox in its full splendor!. I have attempted to address this issue on the template talk page, but it appears that the people involved in developing this template are unable to see my perspective. Of course we need a template of this kind, but the layout of this template has developed what should have been an unobtrusive infobox to something more akin to a juggernaut. I suggest that the only way to effect the changes necessay is a deletion process. Hopefully the necessary changes will be made as a result and the process may not have to end in deletion, otherwise, I suggest there is no other way but to make a fersh start. — meco (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unquestionably keep - The box and its fesatures were created and agreed upon by the community of editors working on CJKV (Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese)-related articles. The box is used at hundreds of articles in order to keep Asian characters and romanizations out of the lead, especially in articles such as Chopsticks or Tofu, where it provides all relevant Asian spellings and romanizations in a single box for users' convenience. And, while its color scheme could be improved, this nomination is entirely out of line and unhelpful to our project. Badagnani (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And to me it appears that you have developed a proprietary, and biased perspective on what an article should look like. Just because the name of a subject can be written in various East Asian scipts does not justify that a template which to most readers deals with an aspect of minimal importance, attempting by all means possible to become the article's centrepiece __meco (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep & close. An invaluable template with around 1000 transclusions. The nominator appears to be making a POINT as he admits above that "Of course we need a template of this kind", while the rationale above smacks of "IDON'TLIKEIT". The only point of contention appears to be with the layout of this template. Contrary to what he says, the nominator has made little attempt to discuss the matter on the template talk page, hasn't made it clear what he thinks is wrong with the template (besides vauge "it's horrible" comments), nor has made any practical suggestions for improvement. I find this nomination wholly distruptive. PC78 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - An examination of the history of this template will show that I objected strenuously over a period of months to several elements of it (most notably the terrible color scheme), yet consensus did build for it, since it served the aims we needed, and I went with the consensus, as we do at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It does not appear that you have bothered to read my posts on the template's discussion page. As I have stated, yes we need a template like this, but when it is obvious that the people who have taken this to their hearts are not interested in making the radical changes necessary, I reason that this process may be what is needed to effect the change which I see as imperative. __meco (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read your comments. The only specific things you said were that the template was too big, and that there shouldn't be an image. Which is awfully vague. Why is it too big? Why shouldn't there be an image? As noted by others here, this template and its use has been forged by concensus over a significant period of time. Why should "radical changes" be made on the say so of one editor who has drifted along one day and decided that he doesn't like what he sees? You haven't properly stated your concerns with the template, or what you think needs to be changed. Your comments on the talk page were minimal, and you brought the template here less than three days later. Using TfD to force a discussion is a blatant abuse of the system. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are correct in stating that requested changes to the box were generally never made when requested, even repeatedly. However, you aren't making sense because on the one hand you object to the template itself, then state that you wish improvements to be made, but fail to be extremely clear and specific (or at least somewhat clear and specific) about what those proposed changes might be. Badagnani (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep & close - Ok this proposal has to be a joke by user Meco. This template uses the same layout as Template:Infobox Military Conflict, Template:Infobox Actor, Template:Infobox racing driver or any other multi-layered templates. Is based on similar code and share the same color at least with a few other templates.  Benjwong (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - My point exactly. This infobox deals with an insignificant aspect of the article, namely the spelling of its name. The other infoboxes are all about summarizing main data relating to the article. __meco (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The name of something isn't exactly "insignificant" (in fact, it isn't even slightly insignificant). Further, a photo (often with caption) is often included in the box, which provides significant information, such as at Guan Yin, Chopsticks, or Tofu. Badagnani (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I contend, leave general pictures out of a linguistics infobox. Again, this is a sign of extreme feature creep to justify a completely overblown infobox. __meco (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An image to identify the subject is par for the course in any infobox; hardly "a sign of extreme feature creep". An infobox provides information, and an image is informative. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are infoboxes, and then there are infoboxes. Meaning, just because we are able to stick the semantic label "infobox" on this template doesn't mean we shouldn't keep in perspective what its purpose is. It should not compete with other infoboxes. At all. It should be modest in appearance. __meco (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? What competition with other infoboxes? The purpose of this template seems very clear, and it is well structured. The presence of an image doesn't interfere with that. PC78 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - In reference to the editor proposing deletion, who says just above, "It should not compete with other infoboxes," it's clear that this editor has only newly begun to investigate this issue. Because we don't use this infobox at articles such as Joan Chen or Zhang Yimou, because there aren't many alternate names for these people, and, more importantly, an infobox for their profession already exists. For Chopsticks, Guan Yin, or Tofu, however, it's necessary to present many different names, and these items/goddesses don't have infoboxes for their professions as Zhang Yimou and Joan Chen do, because these items/goddesses don't have professions. Badagnani (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meco, you are not showing any signs of understanding how romanizations work. A person from another culture will NOT naturally look for Guan Yin.  That is a very obscure English spelling.  They might look for the traditional chars 觀音, japanese kanji 観世音, thai name กวนอิม.  By fitting it all in 1 template, you can find the article with any name of the above. Benjwong (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But I don't propose that this information shouldn't be presented in these articles. It's just that this template is making it into the focal point of attention. It shouldn't be. It should be easy to locate, yet modest in visual appearance not to detract from other aspects of the article. __meco (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you propose then? PC78 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some articles like this one are unmanageable without a template. We are already auto-hiding the romanizations to make it more modest than before. And nobody made this template the focal point of any article. Like I said the code is similar to many other templates. Benjwong (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to PC78's question above ("what do you propose?") using your example of Sino-British Joint Declaration. Like with the other articles I have commented on I find this template attentiongrabbing in the extreme. The fact that you have already hidden some of it using collapsible auto-hide simply isn't sufficient. I may not possess the delicacy necessary to indicate exactly to what level of visibility this infobox should assigned. I think I would actually prefer it completely collapsed, like the navboxes with only the title bar visible so that users would know what it was if they needed the information which it provides. Please understand that to most users this information is totally unusable and therefore constitutes visual noise. That is an added argument, not the most important though, why this infobox should be presented as unobtrusively as possible. __meco (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The actual Chinese name of something Chinese is not a "totally unusuable" piece of information. Those who are interested in the subject, yet not interested in the Chinese name can disregard the Chinese name and focus on all other aspects of the article. Badagnani (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep & close per the various arguments above. This discussion ismore of how to improve the template and belongs on the template talk page, not here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that there has been little attention given to the demand for these changes. I think we could benefit from the synergy of this debate continuing while at the same time efforts can be made to improve the appearance of the template. Many a page has been improved considerably during an AfD and consequently survived the nomination. __meco (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "These changes" are not specified in a very clear manner, here or anywhere else. They should have been proposed in the talk page of the template itself, as is normal for Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this TfD a joke? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:21, 27 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Infobox Power Ranger 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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned infobox template. Seems all the job is done by Infobox Power Rangers. No reason to have this one. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant and unused.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:38, 27 April 2008 (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 section.