Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2



Template:Concept automobile



 * 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 since subject is covered by a category with a sufficient way --Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The template itself provides the reason why it should be deleted: "Concept cars, by definition, rarely become production models". Which means that most concept cars stay concept cars for all eternity. Which also means that those articles will contain this supposedly "temporary" template for all eternity, which is rather pointless. Additionally, stating that an article might contain information of speculative nature is not useful, either, since that's true for most articles. Also note that this nomination is not about Category:Concept automobiles and Category:Upcoming automobiles, which are perfectly fine categories, IMHO. If the template will be deleted, the closing admin should add the categories to every article that previously included the template. Conti|✉ 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The lede and text of the article and associated footnotes are fully capable of describing the contingent and future nature of the topic without a template that may be at the top of an article for years and adds nothing to the content of the article. Superfluous. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the nominator argues, this template is likely to stay on some articles for ever, which is always a bad thing with article boxes. The fact that an article is about a concept car should be mentioned in the lead anyway. Terraxos (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reason to disclaim an article is about a concept car. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:33, 20 November 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:Building under construction and Template:Stadium under construction

 * 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 both and add the appropriate categories to the articles transcluding these templates --Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These templates are supposed to be added to all articles on buildings/stadiums that are currently under construction. They notify the reader that the article "may contain information of a speculative nature", which doesn't seem very useful to me, since that statement is true for pretty much every article we have. They also say that "the content [of the article] may change dramatically and frequently", which is not true at all. Most buildings (at least most of those that we have an article on) take many, many years to complete, and the content of those articles very, very rarely changes dramatically or frequently. Also note that this nomination is not about Category:Buildings under construction or Category:Stadiums under construction, which are perfectly fine categories, IMHO. If the templates will be deleted, the closing admin should add the corresponding category to every article that previously included the templates. --Conti|✉ 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Note that I have changed the nomination to include Template:Stadium under construction as well, since exactly the same rationale applies to it. If anyone disagrees with this, I'm happy to create an additional nomination for that template. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The message of this template is too obvious and not needed. Plus it means having this tag on an article for several years. Garion96 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wholeheartedly agree. If a building is still under construction that should be made abundantly clear in the first sentence. No need for this intrusive self-reference. The fact that it's been placed here is taking the piss. Flowerparty ☀  23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was really weird, I removed it from that article. Perhaps one time we should look at some other templates placed in Category:Temporal templates. An example of templates getting out of hand. Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also Stadium under construction, where the same argument seems to apply. Perhaps we could lump this one in? Flowerparty ☀ 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts you're right, there's loads of them. Let's just stick with this one for now. Flowerparty ☀ 23:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) I've added the template to this nomination. The exact same reasoning applies to both templates, IMHO. I have created various other TFD nominations for other templates in that category already. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)f
 * Fine by me. I held back when I noticed Future sports venue, Future arena and Sports venue under re-development (!?). Flowerparty ☀ 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The situations surrounding those templates are slightly different, IMHO (which doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted). They're not nearly as widely used, for example. Template:Sports venue under re-development is only used in 1 article, which alone should be enough reason to delete it. But that's a discussion for another nomination, I think. :) --Conti|✉ 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Functionally a copy of future. Superfluous and an example of temporal template proliferation. The lede and content of the article, with appropriate footnotes is far better able to describe the contingent and planned nature of the topic in question. This argument applies to all of the sub-categories created of the future template. All are redundant, and fail to add to the content of the articles in question. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't like any current/future event tags at all. To me they violate WP:NOTCENSORED.  Reywas92 Talk  11:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I suggested the creation of the Stadium Under Construction template (see Talk:Lucas Oil Stadium), so the sports venues under construction didn't have the ''proposed arena" template (the arena wouild be already in construction, but its wikipedia template would be proposed, what is not correct.) Brady4mvp (Talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Though I've actually used it in the past, there is no reason to say info may be "speculative". Per WP:V everything on WP should be cited and therefore nothing should be speculation.  Black  ngold29   22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have changed the wording to one similar to some of the other current templates, "Information and specifications may change rapidly as construction approaches completion.". ViperSnake151 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one of a great many tags that accomplish nothing for readers except clutter up articles. --Rividian (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a contradiction to WP:V. That the building is proposed or under construction should be presented in the first sentence.  Grsz  11   →Review!  20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find these templates that offensive, but they are (or should be) redundant with the article's lede, and the wording seems to slightly encourage lapses in verifiability. Further, superfluous templates desensitize one to the presence of templates at the top of the article; deleting them will make important templates (unreferenced, NPOV, etc.) stand out more.  Fletcher (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Flowerparty, and Fletcher. (These two templates almost cry out for the satire of a "human life under construction - not dead yet; events may occur" template.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 22 November 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:TodaysFinancialNews

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unused. That's probably not very surprising, considering that the template says that articles using it should not exist in the first place. Conti|✉ 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another example of temporal template proliferation, copying the fuctionality of current without adding to the content of the article itself. The lede, text and associated footnotes are the the best and the standard Wikipedia method to indicate the recentness of any topic. Superfluous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates No disclaimers in articles. Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 5 November 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:Current change in status

 * 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! 08:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Only used in 1 article currently. The template basically states that some kind of business or organization is undergoing some change right now. We don't need to inform our readers about that with a template, we do that with the article itself. Conti|✉ 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This template mimics some of the functionality of current. Its use has been highly misleading in its placement on  articles for entities with complex  corporate restructuriings, such as Washington  Mutual. An example of the uselessness of a temporal template, where text in the lede and appropriate sections of the article in question are far more capable of describing the changes the entity has recently (or not so recently) undergone. The template cannot begin to approach a description of what happens during a restructuring, and needlessly takes up prominant space at the top of the article without improving the content of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yellowdesk. If it's necessary to mention this with a template at all (and it usually isn't), the current and current-related templates do the job much better. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 5 November 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:NYPD Blue 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. --Conti|✉ 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unused, redundant to Infobox character Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Black  ngold29   22:38, 3 November 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:Interwiki-expand

 * 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.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are already too much maintenance tags for the English Wikipedia. Let's not have maintenance tags on en.wikipedia regarding Wikipedia in other languages. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only likely to confuse readers, surely. Flowerparty ☀ 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If a maintenance tag is not useful, then this could rather be implemented as a list on WikiProject Echo. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment restrict to talk page? 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - sorry to say it, but it's not really the business of the English Wikipedia to be encouraging users to work on other 'pedias. Especially given how undeveloped some of them are, meaning that just about every English article could be justifiably tagged with this template. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reform as a talk page tag and see if there is any interest in it's use there. If not, delete at that time. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 6 November 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:Expand-topic

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost the same as template above. No need for a maintenance tag on one article to ask if something could be done on other articles. Garion96 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are some topics on Wikipedia that are severely lacking coverage, and this could lead to systematic bias. It may be better to place this template on a talkpage, so that editors could be able to collabrate within the relavent Wikiproject. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what the wikiproject templates are for. Which are already on the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect: substantially the same functionality as expand. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - bad idea for an article template, as it could proliferate widely without being of much use (e.g. adding this to every single member of Category:Comic book characters seems like it would be counterproductive). Would be fine as a talkpage template, but we have WikiProject templates already for that. Terraxos (talk) 23:32, 5 November 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:FOSS Stalwarts And Emerging Personalities

 * 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! 08:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not used/useful. Damiens .rf 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lergely a duplicate of the nebulously-qualified FOSS personalities; let's not go making even more of these. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems self-contradictory.  Another name for it would be "longbeards and noobs".  Which is it?  Both?  In which case who wouldn't be covered by it? RussNelson (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - amongst other things, there are problems of neutrality and original research with this template. Who is to decide what makes someone a 'FOSS Stalwart'? It would be better off deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 5 November 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:Pittsburgh Steelers seasons

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All information has been merged into Template:Pittsburgh Steelers. It is redundant to have two.  Black  ngold29   18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per as redundant.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:23, 17 November 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:1974 FIFA World Cup venues

 * 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 --Conti|✉ 15:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unused after sustitution onto the only page likely to ever make use of it (1974 FIFA World Cup). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The template itself is actually pretty nice and the info is useful. As it is only used on one artice, however, it does not warrant a template. Keep info in the article, delete actual template.  Black  ngold29   22:40, 3 November 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.