Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2



Template:Infobox port

 * 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. I've just removed most of the template from articles and substed it, but others are welcome to find a better template to replace it with or make other editorial decisions (for a list of the articles that used to have this template look in my contribs before this post or ask me). delldot  &nabla;.  03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Template serves no purpose other than to add what is effectively an advertising box of services to marina articles (many of dubious or zero notability), in contravention of Wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unnecessary template, most marinas don't warrant notability anyway. Mostly advertorial/directory in nature. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "ad" box is clearly unnecessary, but why is the template up for deletion instead of merely having the checklist removed from the infobox?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The infobox can be cleaned up to be of some value. However most of the encyclopedic stuff about a port/marina (general location, owner/operator, etc.) can be handled with a company or organization infobox. A Geobox can handle the more specialized info about a harbor or sea port, but with more labor involved. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be needed, and, as noted above, it seems to be effectively an advertising box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 September 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.

Interstate infoboxes

 * 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 (no objections). Infobox Interstate/Intrastate was speedied on 9/7 as T3. delldot  &nabla;.  02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)




 * Delete, we don't need these templates anymore. An editor recently updated these templates with Infobox road.-- Freewayguy What's up? 18:20, 2 September 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:Persondata

 * 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. 'I'm closing this as a Speedy Keep'' as it is clear from the discussion that the WP:SNOW philosophy applies, and it is debatable whether the proposer understands the value of this template. See Microformats for more information on metadata included on web pages. For example, coord, and kml are recent tools that can format geographic coordinate metadata on Wikipedia to create custom Google Maps. -- Trödel 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)



On August 15th I added this section questioning the usefulness of the template. Noone has responded in that section, so I'm assuming that the template is not actually used for any specific purposes. Keeping a template because it might one day be used on a wide spread/useful basis doesn't seem like a good thing. Rockfang (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if this had been brought up at WikiProject Persondata before nominating the template for deletion. I'm sure you would have received some response there. Kaldari (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought it up on the template's talk page. I thought (and still think) that was sufficient.  I figured that if people cared about a template, they would have it on their watchlist.  I have on my watchlist all of the templates I care about.--Rockfang (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, you brought this up on a redirect of the template talk page. People watching the template wouldn't have seen your question. Road Wizard (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Next time I will be more specific.  I tagged what essentially is the template's talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Whilst you may question the utility of the semantic code within the template, and suggest that this code be removed, it is clear that this template is extraordinarily widely used, and that deletion of the template would bring massive collateral damage. Mayalld (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check out this, an editor commented that it is used on 5% of all biographies. 5% doesn't seem like a lot.--Rockfang (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. He actually wrote that with his (virtual) bare face hanging out. I'm stunned. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5% of a lot of articles is a lot. By my reckoning this template is used on over 30,000 articles! Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 261. Template:Persondata ‎(27,876 links) Bazj (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As was stated by Dr pda at Wikipedia talk:Persondata before this reached TfD, the German Wikipedia shows evidence of the potential uses of this data once it reaches a critical mass. I am not sure I understand the nominator's argument for deletion; as far as I can see it boils down to a request to delete because it can be deleted. What benefit does deletion bring to Wikipedia? Road Wizard (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as template does have widespread use (~27,900 links) per User:Bazj; and utility of template is explained at WikiProject Persondata --Lini (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the template still hasn't been tagged by an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, your editprotected tag on the talk page has been neutered again. Bazj (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Maybe 3rd time's the charm?--Rockfang (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This method of meta tagging is a great idea. I look forward to seeing it's true potential in the near future. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a much used and useful template. No TfD on the template. No consensus on the template's talk page to start the TfD. Bazj (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that there was never a tag on the template is because 2 previous admins killed the editprotected without adding the template like I requested. Also, no consensus is need to put a template up for TfD.--Rockfang (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is probably a very strong sign that you are making a mistake. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is required for any change on a protected page, including the addition of a TfD tag. The fact that the page is protected should tell you that people care about this template. The objections this proposal has received so far will pale into insignificance once the TfD shows up on 28000 articles. I suggest you withdraw the TfD. Bazj (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In the future, I'll only put  on the template talk page (or the final target if it is a redirect) instead if the template is fully protected. Also, thanks for the suggestion, but I won't remove the TfD just because there is a possibility of this TfD being closed as keep.--Rockfang (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to suggest that the closer keep in mind the fact that the template as of this comment still hasn't been tagged with a template. I also suggest waiting to close this until 5 days after the template is tagged.  That way, more people will know about it.--Rockfang (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't said this in over a year, I think, but speedy keep. This is one of the least thought-out XfD nominations I've ever seen. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP This template is essential for expanding wikipedia beyond a human readable encyclopedia into something much much more educational and interesting. I have PersonData projects in the pipeline right now that I believe will demonstrate the importance of this template. A previous small project/script was done on the German Wikipedia: http://www.alder-digital.de/wiki/index.php?title=Personendaten/Top1000linksto That link lists the top biographies on the German wikipedia in terms of number of incoming links. If you knew nothing about what a 21st German would be interested in or what was "important" to them, that would be a great place to start. Metadata information, including these templates, are the future of wikipedia. --Rajah (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Template tagged with Tfd notice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot see any reason whatsoever for deleting it. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:17, 5 September 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.