Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 17



Template:Sonic Universe

 * 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 discussion was Move to wikiproject space, pending use there, if not it will be deleted in about a week. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't used anywhere and it really has no purpose. TTN (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only used on one article. The articles it links to should be able to find a spot in one of the four (!) other nav templates related to Sonic the Hedgehog. It also links to other template pages, which is not not something a normal reader should be directed to. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to WikiProject page I can see how this can be useful, just not on any articles, as Rl0919 said readers should not be directed to the template namespace. It can however serve a useful purpose on a related WikiProject page, such as WP:SONIC. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:45, 18 August 2009 (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:kWh/mile

 * 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)



The template attempts to make a conversion from kilowatt-hours per mile into miles per US gallon and optionally pounds of per mile. The main problem, of course, is that no such conversion is possible without knowing the details of the system in question and/or the meaning of the comparison. Such details should be spelt out explicitely in each article if they don't constitute original research (which they probably would in most cases). The other problem is that there's no sign of SI units anywhere. Kilowatt-hours per mile should instead be converted to kilowatt-hours per kilometre and/or megajoules per kilometre (or some such metric units). If a volume of petrol per distance equivalence is desired, it should be fully explained, sourced and converted to metric/US/imperial. Same for mass of per distance. All of this is possible with convert (... not the explaining, etc.). J IM ptalk·cont 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant and unused. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (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:Bishop Most Rev Dr C V Mathew

 * 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 discussion was speedy delete per T3. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this template was created as a test by a user. Same user's also created a few duplicate pages, and the content here is another duplicate of one of those pages.

Has no template code, not useful as a template. LH (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (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.

Generation templates

 * 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 discussion was Delete Generations, but Keep Cultural gens. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as well as

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Until the generations and their dates can be agreed upon by a majority--an unlikely scenario--such a box that asserts universally accepted generational divides is entirely inappropriate. --Zach425 talk / contribs 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the logic in that? Just because a definition is not clear doesn't mean the topics are deleted. So I see no logical reason that a template box would be deleted also. SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whereas a topic being addressed in an article allows for the presentation of a wide range of evidence, the same topic being put into a template box often does not. A template box's size does not typically permit much discordant information; therefore, the information contained therein may be interpreted as uncontested instead of one part of an intricate puzzle. The new, condensed version of Cultural gens (see below) avoids this problem by presenting a mainstream list with reference to a more detailed article. --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can still see several problems with the template. First of all, we have yet to hear from either the pro- or anti- Generation Jones camps on the topic, and I can tell you that the inclusion or exclusion of that term is always difficult in the generational articles. Secondly, the linked article is not sourced. Thirdly, I think the template itself should be sourced if we are going to use it. Fourthly, it address only American generations. While this is fine in theory, it doesn't seem all that useful of a template for a global generational article. Fifthly, I dispute the existence of a generation Z. I think that all of these problems in combination make the template more trouble than it's worth. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I significantly changed Cultural gens since its nfd. I took out all the dates, which seem to be very controversial and just paired it back to the basic list. If you wish to pair it back further, go ahead.
 * Interbellum Generation
 * Silent Generation
 * Baby Boom Generation
 * Generation X
 * Generation Y or Millennial Generation
 * Generation Z or Internet Generation
 * If you have a problem with this template, then you must have a problem with List of generations as well, as it is a list of generations that may or may not be agreed upon by a majority. It has been nominated and not deleted in the past.


 * And second of all, the Generations template is in reference to a specific book and in the article namespace is only used on the two pages that relate to the book and the authors. I think it is very appropriate to keep this template.  It is an illustration of one authors definition of the generations and says so specifically on the bottom of the template. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Cultural gens, but Delete Generations Nasa-verve (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rubin, I looked around and tried to find the discussion on the nomination for the deletion for the previous generations template that you referred to here and in the talk page for Cultural gens, could you please paste a link here? Thanks!  Nasa-verve (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Generations seems like a bit of an odd template. It refers to only one point of view, and seems out of place on wikipedia, unless we can consider this point of view to be so influential as to merit multiple article's on its own conception of generations. I vote to delete it.


 * While the subject of generations seems like a natural one for an info box, it has proven too controversial in the past to set out a definitive box of this nature. Cultural gens is, and will more or less inevitably be, too simplistic to account for the divergences of both opinion, and experience on this topic, in reference to names, dates, and sequence. At the moment, for example, it basically only applies to the US. Any attempt to remedy this situation will either make it so complex, or so simple, that it is more or less useless as a template. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Previous deletion discussion was at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_20. It was few months ago, but nothing has really changed that I can see.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both. There are obvious POV issues around selecting what "generations" appear in these boxes. An article can discuss these issues in enough detail to provide neutrality. A template can't, so it either becomes POV-selective, or it must include all generations-related articles, at which point it duplicates Category:Cultural generations. --RL0919 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into one template. There is clearly a link between these generations and as such a clear form of navigation is essential, the only question should be in what form that navigation should take. SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Cultural Gens." only.  The Strauss and Howe generations are not sufficiently important or well established to be included ina n encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Both. I don't see anything wrong with either topicbox, they're encyclopedic and helpful. And I think it's a good thing that the Generations one cites a specific source. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Cultural gens, but Delete Generations. The new version of Cultural gens is useful and minimally controversial, as it follows List of generations. Generations contains information readily available in the article and includes a generational shift that arose after the publication of the book from which the template was supposedly constructed. --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cultural gens seems most similar to the previously deleted template.  Generations may have a point, but its usefullness is in question.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Current tallys : KEEP:1 DELETE:6 --> Generations, KEEP:4 DELETE:2 --> Cultural gens‎, MERGE:1 Nasa-verve (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took off the navbar, which will reduce the frequency that people add superfluous generations to the list. Here is the diff.  I think this may address some concerns that people will just add generations and get into edit wars about unagreed-to/vague generational terms.  Also, in the HTML comments of the page, I added the statement that the list on the template must mirror the list on the List of generations page, and so this template will have a pointed back to a page that his references to back up the list.  What does everyone think about that?   Nasa-verve (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this change makes for a decent template. I might suggest changing "See also:" to "See:".  This would indicate that the list was taken from the List of generations page instead of suggesting the List of generations page as a source of additional information.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That change suggests that it be replaced by a or, rather than being retained at all.  Otherwise, disputes at Cultural gens and List of Generations may not be in sync.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur, the text on the bottom and the link See: List of generations I believe addresses this concern. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to seealso as suggested. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think this template will cause more trouble than it is worth. We haven't yet heard from the pro/anti Jones camp yet, but they will undoubtedly surface sooner or later. If no one else does, I will object to the inclusion of "Generation Z" which I think is quite farcical. Also, no one has addressed the fact that this template only deals with the US. Are we going to make separate templates for every country? Are we going to put this at the front of every generation article as if American generations are the only ones that really matter? Or are we going to stick it at the end, in a motley crew of templates for countries/regions? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Peregrine: I can appreciate your concern about GenJones and GenZ. I actually read through the talk page on List of generations and saw the drama. I think that if you have a problem with GenZ, you need to address it on the List of generations page and not here, because the intention of this template is to mirror that page. I noticed curiously that you never removed it from that page. Regarding the US only comment, there are many templates that are US centric, such as US executions that do not have the analog for other countries. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that if I should address my problems with GenZ at the page and not here. However, it points out a problem with the architecture of this template. There are probably a few random sources here and there that will call it "Generation Z", same as all kinds of pet names for various demographic cohorts, and they will be listed at "List of Generations." But adding them to a template will confer additional legitimacy to these concepts, which the article does not, because it can explain the concepts in greater detail. If we list Gen Z up there with the Baby Boom, it makes it look as if both are equally respected and accepted concepts, which is patently false. US executions is used in the article Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States which is entirely appropriate. However, these articles try to discuss the generations from a global, or at least international perspective. If you put the list of US generations at the start of the article it makes it seem like the article is about the US exclusively. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (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:UChicago2

 * 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:UChicago. It was used on one page: in the middle of the academics section of University of Chicago. I've since removed it because it was clunky in the middle of the page, so now it isn't on any page. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and redundant to a better-designed template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unnecessary. Not very well laid out either. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:37, 18 August 2009 (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:Birth event age
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 discussion was moved to userspace (User:Rich Farmbrough/Template:Birth event age) JPG-GR (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)



This template appears to be redundant as there is already birth date, birth date and age, and death date and age. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This provides the flexibility that BirthDeathAge was supposed to, and it works. If you look at the documentation you will see it does a lot of things that those templates do not. However it does not support micro-formats yet.. massive deprecation notices are not really suitable for in-line-type templates like this. Rich Farmbrough, 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Move to user space until ready for deployment (i.e. includes microformat classes; other issues resolved) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was going to ask you to do the microformat stuff Andy... Rich Farmbrough, 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I'd be happy to advise, but I think the doing may be beyond my technical skills. Better, though to do the work in user space, surely? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry about the large tfd template, and I didn't see the microformat classes. I would support either move to user space or merge. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:46, 17 August 2009 (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.