< June 6	June 8 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hurricane categories[edit]

Template:Hurricane categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is an orphan and is replaced by ((Hurricane)). —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. EVula 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this template is obsolete. --Coredesat 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but for a different reason: this template was replaced by ((Hurricane season categories)). ((hurricane)) is a WikiProject banner. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wesleyantime[edit]

Template:Wesleyantime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was only being used for one article (Ohio Wesleyan University). The information it contains has already been moved into that article. BryanD 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if unused. --Coredesat 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor use of template format. EVula 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unused template. -MrFizyx 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete Template:Infobox Prime Minister Circeus 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Prime Minister OR Template:Infobox PM[edit]

Template:Infobox Prime Minister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This template is sparsely used as it is almost identical to Template:Infobox PM. Philip Stevens 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Infobox PM and Delete Infobox Prime Minister, just to clarify my position. Philip Stevens 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EVula 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The two templates should be merged and the lesser one deleted. To my eye this one looks more developed than Template:Infobox PM, it has useful directions on the talk page and "Prime Minister" seems more descriptive than "PM." Why not keep this one and delete the other? -MrFizyx 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, the "PM" version has wide usage and this one does not. -MrFizyx 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this one. But the table format is better on the other one. I have nominated that as well--GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Infobox PM and delete Infobox Prime Minister. The former is more widely used (which is to say, it's used in the first place). Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, next time, please don't make the tfd nomination part of the template. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Infobox PM and Delete Infobox Prime Minister (changed vote, see below). Hasn't the decision already been made? Infobox PM is widely used and Infobox Prime Ministers is barely uses at all. Doesn't this say something about the Infoboxes, like maybe one is easier to use or simply preferred to the other? Shouldn't we leave the decision to the people who actually pick which template to put on the pages? Hera1187 07:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be correct, OR users might not have been aware that the two versions existed. I just wished someone had discussed a merger on the relevant talk pages before bringing it here. Then we would know. -MrFizyx 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I've been adding the PM template over the last few months, and no-one has really objected. That's a pretty good sign methinks. Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well, very well. I just didn't know the history. -MrFizyx 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, here me out. Template:Infobox President can do the job of these templates easily, the only field missing is Deputy PM and that can be added without any trouble. If you redirect the Template:Infobox PM and Template:Infobox Prime Minster to Template:Infobox Presidents then you wouldn’t need to change anything on the pages that Infobox PM or Infobox Prime Minsters are linked to as they would change automatically and we would have a standard template for world leaders. I would request to whom ever makes the final decision on this template to seriously consider this idea. 86.134.62.25 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an interesting idea which does deserve consideration. I should point out that, although redirecting Infobox Prime Minster to Infobox President would work brilliantly, it would not work as well with Infobox PM as some of the field names are different. You could in theory allow for this by adding some If Statements on to Infobox President but you would probably have to change every page Infobox PM is linked to. Even so, it would be good to have a standard template for heads of government on Wikipedia and I do think it should be considered but it wouldn’t be as straight forward as 86.134.62.25 suggested. Philip Stevens 11:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Presidents are heads of state, prime ministers are heads of government. The two are not the same. Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Philip Stevens 13:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I certainly didn't know two existed, having just added Infobox PM to Jean-Claude Juncker. Infobox PM has some ugly whitespace header, but is being edited regularly. Since I can't actually wrap my head round the code that generates the box, I say just keep one from Prime Minister/PM/President and rename it Template:Infobox Officeholder or something like that. Erath 11:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both and redirect per 86.134.62.25. I would like to change my vote if that's OK. I think Erath is right, we should have a Wiki standard template for world leaders and having looked at template:Infobox President, I think it would fit that role best. Hera1187 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ((tl:Infobox President)) is a lot less detailed than these two. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above. You're talking about apples and oranges. Prime Ministers are heads of government; Presidents are heads of state. They fulfill different functions, have different titles, etc. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they do, but ultimately their infoboxes will contain the same information; dates of incumbency, predecessor, political party, etc. Erath 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I just point out, again, that it would be quite difficult to integrate Infobox PM into Infobox Presidents, the fields have different names. Philip Stevens 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why not set up a new template with new fields that can fit both purposes? It doesn't seem impossible to me. Erath 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The field names of template:Infobox President can be easily adjusted to accommodate for both. I'm sorry Mackensen, but your comments about heads of government and heads of state are silly. Yes they have different roles but their infoboxs would show the same information. If you disagree, have a look at Gordon Brown's page where template:Infobox PM is being used quite nicely. I would argue that the roles of a head of government and a head of state are more similar than a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hera1187 15:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, indeed, because there's a hack in there so that the template can be used for German Chancellors (note the (({country-de))} field. The roles of Prime Minister and President (or head of state and head of government) are vastly different from each other. Are you seriously maintaining that Tony Blair and Elizabeth II do something similar? Or Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin? As compared to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both members of parliament and Cabinet colleagues. There is a need for separate templates because the offices are different. It is silly to have Template:Infobox President on an article about a Prime Minister. We shouldn't be perpetuating this kind of intellectual sloppiness. Similarly, an Infobox Politician is far too broad for the specific needs addressed by this template. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying Tony Blair and Elizabeth II or Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin do something similar, I'm saying that their templates will show the same information and I think there should be a standard template for office holders. If your main aversion to merging the templates is the name, simply move template:Infobox President to something like template:Infobox Officeholder as Erath suggested or make template:Infobox Prime Minister a redirect to template:Infobox President and have that on top of a Prime Minister's page. Hera1187 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about ((Infobox Politician))? --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there's utility in binding all Prime Ministers with one template. I suppose this could be extended to all politicians. if one wanted. It made sense to me to have a specific template for such individuals, particluarly when they held prominent office. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The proposal, as it stands, appears to be to delete both templates for no apparent reason other than the notion that all politicians should have the same template. Numerous technical and semantic objections have been raised; not the least of which is the difficulty of converting one template to the other as they do not handle all functions in a similar fashion and Infobox PM has been tailored to its subject, just as Infobox President has. There's no reason to upset the status quo; if templates are to be merged they should be discussed on those templates pages. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one, redirect the other I don't care which is kept or which is redirected, but neither should be deleted. Proposals to consolidate this infobox into a generic politicians or leaders box can be dealt with outside this forum.--cj | talk 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Philip Stevens 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Infobox PM, which is widely used. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-priority[edit]

Template:Cleanup-priority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The last of the articles tagged with this template has (finally) been cleaned up. We are now sorting by topic and date of tagging, which I guess is why this template is no longer used. -- Beland 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. What if new articles need priority cleanup in the future? --Rory096 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Rory096. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it worked in the first place. (I created the template, but I never saw any evidence of it actually speedying anything up.) --Fastfission 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, speedy delete, ((db-author)). --Rory096 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I decided to process wonk on that speedy (not only author, others think it's useful). Delete but not speedily. Kusma (討論) 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• unspeedy deliberate delete per above. -MrFizyx 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fastfission. Sophy's Duckling 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Fastfission. I see this template as deprecated to ((cleanup)) and ((cleanup-date)), which is how the majority of articles that require cleanup are tagged now unless an alternative is more suited to the cleanup required. As a side-note, there is (edit:) a page with featured articles in other languages that haven't reached FA/GA yet. (end edit: TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)) TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future spaceflight[edit]

Template:Future spaceflight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is redundant, useless and not helpful to Wikipedia. The ((current)) template perfectly fits instead of this. Kirils 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have plenty of specialized ((current))-like tags. Rename the category to something like "Upcoming space flights" or something, though. --Rory096 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - per Rory096. Also, of all the specialised current\future tags, this is the furtherest away from the baseline template, so in order to justify it's deletion, you must also delete ((future album)), ((future book)), ((future building)), ((future film)), ((future game)), ((future infrastructure)), ((future product)), ((Future road)), ((future sport)), ((future software)) and ((future television)) for exactly the same reasons. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This template clearly violates WP:NOT. Whispering 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does? Please explain. --Rory096 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Future road)) and ((future building)) should for sure be merged into ((future infrastructure)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.13.158.11 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep - per Rory096. It's doesn't violate WP:NOT. I quote, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Any space mission is notable and the majority are almost certain to take place, although often the timings change. Philip Stevens 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to bring WP:NOT into it, there is a precident - List of scheduled rocket launches (now List of spaceflights (2006)). The result was keep. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Rory096 -MrFizyx 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rory096. Sophy's Duckling 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rory --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rory096. In addition, Future Spaceflight is particularly unique, in that spaceflight rarely occurs on its originally set date, unlike Album and Movie releases. It is a very good header to start a page off with, so, right off the bat, the user knows that the flight hasn't happened yet and thus the article is largely background and conjecture.
• Keep; I'll add to Rory096's input that a spaceflight launch is the culmination of years of planning and development work in most cases and is in fact the mid-point of the 'mission', the actual endpoint coming years after the flight when all of the accumulated data has been analyzed. Thus, the flight itself is a major event, but only one event in a long process. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, belongs at RfD/withdrawn. --Rory096 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:O RLY?[edit]

Template:O RLY? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopeic redirect to ((fact)), not in use anymore. --KJ 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, bad-faith nomination. Analysis of your contributions reveals that you've orphaned it merely for the sake of deleting it, and that people (besides myself even) actually do use this. — Jun. 7, '06 [05:19] <freak|talk>
  • It's true I've orphaned it on purpose, but I don't see how that amounts to bad faith. It's not in widespread use (compared to "fact" or "citation needed") and I dare say its use should be discouraged. --KJ 05:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, my point was that we don't need O RLY? in an encyclopedia; it's amateurish, and we don't need a redirect to an existing template just for a bad joke. What's more, you've gone and reverted my edits, and now all pages that include the O RLY? template are now botched. --KJ 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for fixing. --KJ 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. --Coredesat 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not redundant to anything, it's a redirect. --Rory096 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't understand the purpose of this template, this is totally unencyclopedic and useless. Afonso Silva 12:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant. 13:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirils (talk • contribs)
• Delete - redundant and unencyclopedic. Slowmover 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, this isn't RfD. --Rory096 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, RfDed. --KJ 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.