Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 31



Template:Bryn Mawr College majors

 * 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) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia isn't a webhost for this unencyclopedic laundry list of majors linking only to general topics. Readers are welcome to go to the college's website if they're so inclined. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an inappropriate use of a navbox. Navboxes are intended to facilitate navigation between linked articles, not to serve as a tool for formatting information that belongs in only one article. While usually I would support listifying the content to the article in which the navbox is used, in this case straightforward deletion per WP:NOT is more appropriate. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Instant Delete - violated all kinds of policies. Also, useless.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 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:Seasons in Afghanistan national football team

 * 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 deleted (criterion G2: test page) by User:Ryan Delaney. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)



Not in use anywhere. The full wikicode is: '2001'. There are no season articles to link to and there are unlikely to ever be as the Afghan team rarely plays- their last match was in October '08 and they have no upcoming fixtures listed for this year or 2010. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G2 as test page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:10, 31 May 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:English source

 * 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) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



Similar template to Template:English sources, that was deleted per consensus at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_22. This template implies that the use of non-English sources is not ok. That is not correct according to WP:RS, although English sources are preferred when they exist. If someone knows a English source they should add that instead of this template. If they they just think such sources exist they should assume good faith. Rettetast (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This template is a call for assistance not passing judgment. Many editors don't know that English sources are preferred and this template helps identify that not just to the editor making the change but others who can help as well. We should also assume good faith in use of this template, we cant assume it will be misused. This template is particularly helpful with articles transwikied from other Wikipedias, particularly with editors who are unaware that English sources are preferred.  If Englishs sources are not available, the template need only be removed and noted in the edit summary or talk page, where is the harm in that?  I do agree that the wording could be changed a bit to resolve concerns about what it implies ("English reference preferred" rather than "English reference needed").--RadioFan (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the same reason as mentioned in Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 22. Garion96 (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how this differs from the other case. Punkmorten (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to the same reasons I stated with regards to Template:English sourceS. Manxruler (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as WP:NONENG stands it should stay. Template does its job of saying what should be fixed and points to specific location in the text. Definitely better than slapping Article issues on top or generic inline refimprove: clear, narrow scope. NVO (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG says that English sources are preferable. That does not mean non-English sources are bad or that all non-English sources have to be tagged and later replaced with an English source. Basically nothing has to be fixed. Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not needed, as foreign sources are perfectly valid. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussions. We don't need to tag things that are perfectly acceptable. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above: this is a "solution" (to the extent that tagging is) in search of a problem. Reliable, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. Non-English sources may even be more desirable if they are more reliable or accessible than available English-language sources. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:09, 7 June 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:Star Trek: Phase II

 * 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) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



In many ways identical to Star Trek TOS plus a proposed/planned television show does not warrant a template. See also the placing of this template on the James Doohan aticle where phase II is not even mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's definitely not needed. I mean, the show never even happened, and frankly, it's confusing to read. Completely unnecessary. -- Aatrek / TALK 12:32, 1 June 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:ALW-CBC

 * 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) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



No sequel to How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? in Canada has been announced yet. Unless one does occur, this is not needed ViperSnake151 Talk  00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:05, 31 May 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:Ship and its myriad wrapper 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 Speedy keep Clear WP:SNOW here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Substitute and delete. These are syntactic sugar that very slightly simplify editing for experienced editors knowledgeable in the ships field, whilst confusing new editors and editors who don't usually contribute in this field. See this diff for an example of its use. Hesperian 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ship is currently on the main page. --Ryan Delaney talk
 * Comment: I believe the first two (Ship and sclass) must stay. The others offer very little. Sv1xv (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must they stay? Hesperian 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to file a legitimate TFD and not mess up hundreds of articles (including current DYK) ? weak keep: wide usage = useful for many. NVO (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So now we keep things just because a few people have made a concerted effort to roll them out? Try "wide usage = confusing for many." Hesperian 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Substitute with what? --Brad (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With equivalent wiki code. e.g. HMS Queen Mary —> HMS Queen Mary Hesperian 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is a part of the WikiProject Ships so I suggest a strong keep. It's hard to substitute it with something unless you have a plan to revamp all the pages that currently uses the ships template.  I noticed this was up for vote when one of the pages I was reading had the notification up on a picture I was reading.  ViriiK (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's hard to substitute it with something unless you have a plan to revamp all the pages that currently uses the ships template." Nonsense. It is patently obvious that these templates could be removed without "revamp"ing a whole lot of pages. Hesperian 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that the template has been used for 5 years and is popular among the pople over at WikiProject Ships, I don't think they'll be too thrilled about it being deleted. Especially since I've edited ship pages in the past before using this template.  Propose an alternative if you can.  ViriiK (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The alternative is wikicode. Funnily enough, I've created quite a number of ship articles without even knowing these template existed. Using wikicode wasn't exactly onerous. The age of the template is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is on the WikiProject Ships page, as is the number of people that deletion upsets. Hesperian 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, great but by your own admission you aren't aware of WikiProject Ships then? More than enough reason for a Strong Keep.  The age of the template is quite relevant considering these people have been using it that long and now you want to eliminate it because it's supposedly "too confusing" when it's not and the explanation for using the template is quite clear.  As Parsecboy pointed out, the wiki-code equivalent seems to be more confusing than this actual template.  ViriiK (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please. The fact that I don't join WikiProjects has nothing to do with anything. And I've already offered a counter-example to the ridiculous proposition that these make editing less confusing to newbs. Hesperian 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - these templates are quite useful to those who regularly write ship articles. I don't see how they're all that confusing; the vast majority of those that are in use (i.e., USS and HMS) are USS ship name (disambiguator, if any) . How is HMS Queen Mary confusing? I'd wager that new users would find the equivalent wiki-code HMS Queen Mary more confusing than the template. Moreover, should we delete convert because it's confusing and not necessary? Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you think newbs will find HMS Dick just as clear as HMS Dick ? Even I have no clue what that "6" does, and I'm certainly not a newb. Hesperian 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because it's an optional parameter as pointed out in the template. It's well explained on what "6" does.  ViriiK (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not confusing to newbs. When a newb tries to edit a page for the very first time, all they have to do is figure out that these are template transclusions, figure out how to visit the template page, read a page of documentation to find out what the "6" means, and then they're good to go! Hesperian 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At first glance when using the template, it's quite obvious on what it does without using the "6" parameter and the after result which seeing what "6" does. How is that any confusing to even a newb?  Not to make fun of the blind people, how can you not notice the difference when using the template for the first time?  Put it in, it shows one thing, take it out, it shows another thing!  Newbs when it comes to editing wikipedia go by what they SEE written before them and manipulate it without trying to cause too much inconvenience.  I'd know because we all did the same thing.  ViriiK (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - and spectaculary poor timing, considering what this has done to today's featured article. I use some of these templates regularly, and the fact that they are confusing to new editors doesn't make them any less useful, especially when compiling tables and lists.  I was a new editor once, and it didn't take long to figure out how to use them.  Leave well alone, say I. Shem (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - if it's not broke, don't fix it. I don't see a need to delete these; what harm do they do? You can still wikicode in ship names if you want. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These templates have been in use for years; I just used four instances this morning while editing. There are thousands of ship articles with these templates in place so replacing them would require a lot of work. The templates provide an excellent shortcut for italicizing ship names which was the idea behind their creation. --Brad (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to delete it, but I'm not sure it's a net benefit either. People like them, but templatising running prose is the sort of thing that makes articles harder to maintain and tougher for parsers to interpret. There'd be a lot more benefit to using these if we were likely to change the way ship names are displayed - things like the citation templates will be a godsend if we want to change citation styles - but that doesn't seem likely here. (I speak as someone who's always deliberately avoided using them.) Shimgray | talk | 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - widely used and useful. Makes a significant contribution to formatting and saves on duplication resulting in less likelihood of a typo or other editor-induced error. In response to the original proposal, "new editors and editors who don't usually contribute in this field" don't have to use it. -- G W … 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - These templates greatly simplify coding for those who know them, and as they aren't a requirement, newer users don't need to use them. Visually, they are fairly obvious what they do when editing a page - they are arguably more readily understandable than the base wiki-code; with the exception of the optional parameters, which are well documented, so those who wish to learn more of their use can do so easily. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per Barek. As to the optional parameters, perhps something more intuitive could be developed to supplant the number codes, but that doesn't even seem to be the major objection. Smacks of "I don't like it!" - BillCJ (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I thought I recognised that dubious reference to an HMS Dick, and now I see I seem to have made the diff that provoked you into this. Incidentally (and this may be of interest to you Shimgray), the template does alter how the name is rendered. For example in the diff you used Hesperian you had incorrectly formatted the ship names (HMS Horatio for example). The template correctly leaves the prefix unitalicised, while the name is italicised, and the subsequent hull number or launch date is unitalicised, if the user wants this to be displayed. This in fact makes it easier for a new user to produce a correctly formatted link to a ship. Benea (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep these templates are very widely used and provide valuable consistency. A template with that many transclusions shouldn't even be considered for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 31 May 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.