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) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear rationale for usage - being applied to a number of images to blanket add them to categories. Cander0000 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked a few uses of this template and it appears to be used randomly where the categories do not apply. Unnecessary even if used properly. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2009 (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 section.
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 redirect or move and redirect to achieve a uniform naming convention for these templates. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These criteria for speedy deletion only apply if the page had been listed in an appropriate category for sufficient length of time, and this listing is done by day using other templates. Most use of these templates is by users unaware of this. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These other templates being...? --Cybercobra(talk) 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't this be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion instead of here? As stated in the TFD guidelines, "templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately." As I recall, these CSD templates were used frequently when they were created back in 2005. If you believe "most use of these templates is by users unaware of this" now, and they should be merged or deprecated in favor of ((Di-no license)) and ((Di-no fair use rationale)), respectively, this still involves modifying WP:CSD and all of its associated subpages, navigation templates and categories. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This requires removal of the reference to this template. The comment you quote from the introduction would refer to templates such as ((nld)), which are an integral part of the process. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect them - for instance f4 to ((nld)) and f6 to ((nrd)). MER-C 09:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of redirecting, can't we just turn them into what nld and nrd are currently and redirect those to f4 and f6? It would serve our current system of having all speedy templates begin with db- more to do it this way rather than the other way around. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could also argue that all the delayed speedy should begin with "di-" - "delete if" instead of "delete because". But I have no strong opinion about that. Amalthea 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that ((db-f11)) with ((Di-no permission)) should receive the same treatment as the two under discussion. Amalthea 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Amalthea and MER-C. But I would prefer keeping a standardized naming system. Locosepraix ~ Beastepraix 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Amalthea, et al. Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Infobox Assassination
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) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are plenty of articles about assassinations, for which this would seem to be the only relevant infobox. It may be under-used, but I don't think it's correct to call this template "redundant". PC78 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced by the argument above, an infobox is not an essential requirement for every article, or a substitute for the article itself. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither point is relevant here. Unless there is a suitable alternative or a concensus not to use infoboxes in assassination articles - neither of which appear to be the case - then this template cannot be regarded as "redundant". PC78 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These points are relevant. If the question "Which infobox do we use for this article?" comes up, "None" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Again, show me where it says all articles must have an infobox. They are not proxies for the article text. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that all articles have an infobox, but there is also no reason for these articles not to have one. Of course an infobox is not a proxy for article text; infoboxes summarise article text. This is true of all infoboxes, not just this one. If you have a point then it still eludes me. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point, in case it still isn't obvious, is that "What other infobox could go here?" is irrelevant. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I beg to differ. The lack of a suitable alternative makes this infobox perfectly valid. PC78 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not appear to be redundant or useless. If it is underused, then perhaps interested editors should make more of an effort to place it in relevant articles or evangelize its use, but I don't see that as grounds for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) See update below.[reply]
Keep. Not actually redundant to anything (so far as I can tell) and may be useful to other articles. PC78 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been said above, an infobox is not an essential requirement for every article, or a substitute for the article itself. I will never understand Wikipedia's desire to place infoboxes in each and every article. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said above, that is not an applicable argument because it does not address this particular template or its use in this subject area. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "We don't need infoboxes in articles about assassinations" not an applicable argument? That's just my opinion, of course, but I don't see how it's any more or less valid than those that argue that this infobox is needed. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it's not what you said. Your initial comment, like that of the IP above, reads as a generic "infoboxes are bad" argument. Why do you feel that we don't need infoboxes in articles about assassinations? PC78 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I didn't intend to say "Infoboxes are bad", I meant to say "Infoboxes are not necessarily an integral part of an article". So if we don't have one for an article, that's perfectly fine. As such, I see this the other way around: We shouldn't require reasons why not to use them, we should require reasons why to use them in the first place. In this case, I think that articles about assassinations are doing just fine without an infobox, and that all the important information should already be covered by the lede anyhow, effectively duplicating the information. I don't feel that strongly about this, tho, so if consensus is against me, that's fine by me. --Conti|✉ 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changing my vote per Lampman. ((Infobox civilian attack)) does appear to have everything this one does, plus more, and is much more widely used. --RL0919 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess it is redundant after all. :) PC78 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now converted, so the template is unused. Shall we redirect, instead of deleting? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:10, 27 August 2009 (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 section.
MPGe conversion 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 as this is better handled by ((convert)) Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are intended to display energy consumption per unit distance in terms of the equivalent in terms of litres per 100 kilometres and miles per gallon of pertrol equivalent. The output is given in terms of y L/100 km (x MPGe) which isn't quite valid since we're trying to imply more by the "L" i.e. we don't mean the litre but the energy obtained by combustion of a litre of petrol. The set of templates were only ever used in two articles (and the second only by copy and paste from the first) where they caused nothing but confusion. The confusion was worsened by having the meaning of all the calculations hidden away on the variuous template pages. Tidying these articles up has left the set of templates unused. Nor are these templates ever likely to be used again. Energy consumed per unit distance can and should be expressed in standard units (such as megajoules per kilometre). Any conversion from ammount of fuel consumed per unit distance to energy consumed per unit distance should be explained and justified on the page in question not hidden in a template. JIMptalk·cont 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some Delete (see below) - Hand converting mpgge to Lge/100km or mpgge·imp is a bit tedious. It would be very useful to have a series of templates similar to the set Template:Mpg/Template:Mpg_(Imperial)/Template:L100km to automate those volume/distance conversions. The three units listed (mpgge, Lge/100km, mpgge·imp) are familiar to a large audience and use conversions based on un-contentious, well define volume and distance factors. Update to use "Lge/100km" and "mpgge·imp" where the ge subscript indicates the energy/volume conversion was already done elsewhere but otherwise Keep:
The templates that incorporate an energy/volume factor (for example to convert mpgge into kW·h/100km or BTU/mi ) are somewhat more difficult. While the wiki markup "((convert|120|mpge|lke=on))" might render as "120 mpgge (17.45 kW·h/100km, 1.96 Lge/100km)", it had to use the E/V conversion factor of 8.904 kW·h/L (33.705 kW·h/gallonus). The E/V conversion factor would be relatively easy to recover, but still an exercise for the reader ( 17.45 kW·h/100km * 0.01 * 120 mi/gallon * 1.61 km/mi = 33.7 kW·h/gallon ). If it would help, the energy/volume conversion factor might be explicitly rendered and/or made an optional parameter to the template. For instance, the default rendering might be "120 mpgge (17.5 kW·h/100km, 1.96 Lge/100km using 8.903 kW·h/L)". sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is no distance⁄volume correctly involved here (and templates exist for this anyway) mpgge relates to distance⁄energy. Anything useful here could be incorporated into ((convert)), making for a much more versatile conversion. I'm just not convinced that there is anything useful here. Is mpgge familiar to a large audience? I'm sure that Lge/100km and mpgge·imp are less so. Searching WP for mpge turns up five articles which mention the unit and only three which use it. Searching WP for mpgge turns up three articles: one about the unit itself, one a mention of this article in the See also and one article which actually uses the unit (once). It doesn't seem that well understood—many of those mentions of it are notes about the potential for confusion when using the unit. The template in its current state is inappropriate for these four articles which use the unit. It would be easier to do the calculation by hand (there is only one left) than fix the template to handle them (it). JIMptalk·cont 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the ((convert)) template already has an option to show the units L/100km, mpg, and mpgimp with the ge subscript (mpgge, Lge/l00km and mpgge·imp) that would suffice. Is there a way to do that? sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The option doesn't currently exist but it could be added if need be, which would seem to me to be the better option considering the work which would need to be done on the MPGe template(s) to bring them up to speed (compare the output precision of following).
((convert|623|mpgus)) → 623 miles per US gallon (0.378 L/100 km; 748 mpg‑imp)
((MPGe|623)) → ((MPGe|623))
((convert|3|mpgus)) → 3 miles per US gallon (78 L/100 km; 3.6 mpg‑imp)
((MPGe|3)) → ((MPGe|3))
So, if there exists a need for conversions between mpgge, Lge/100km and mpgge·imp, consider it done but we surely don't need a template for four pages. JIMptalk·cont 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; ((convert)) will be a better place for these conversions if/when a template becomes useful and its improved accuracy will be a benefit as well. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (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 section.
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) 00:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough content for a template. The first single was redirected and the second actually links to a Henry Mancini album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redlinks, redirects to the main article, and links to seemingly unrelated articles. Not a helpful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Notable fires
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 deleteMagioladitis (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail the WP:NAVBOX guidelines, in that it's way too big to allow useful navigation, other than offering a big list of often unrelated fires (most of which appear to be from the 20th and 21st Centuries - surely the Great Fire of London is a notable fire, for example? What constitutes "notable"? Bobtalk 10:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing. This is far too broad a topic for a navbox, categories work just fine. Flowerparty☀ 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of unrelated events, not suitable for a navtemplate. Sorting them by type of structure could possibly form the basis of a list article, though. PC78 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole topic cannot be compressed into a single navbox template. --Locosepraix ~ Beastepraix 01:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be a category or a list article. --RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be much better as a list. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be good to create some new categories here before deleting the template, since some of these fire types don't have categories. — RockMFR 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I've temporarily saved the list on my sandbox, so it's not lost. Bobtalk 17:21, 29 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Slideshow
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) 00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template, encourages fair use galleries. Ideally, an article would not need so many images that a slideshow would be necessary. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:52, 24 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Sp5
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) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This outputs five spaces. Why not hit the space bar five times? Better question, WHY would you need five spaces in a row? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete an absolutely pointless template which makes just it more difficult to get what's going on with the article source code. JIMptalk·cont 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of these template are completely redundant with ((space)). It seems you forgot ((sp1)). --Locosepraix ~ Beastepraix 01:44, 24 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Sp4
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) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This outputs four spaces. Why not hit the space bar four times? Better question, WHY would you need four spaces in a row? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as above. JIMptalk·cont 20:00, 23 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Sp3
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) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (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 section.
Template:Sp2
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) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This outputs two spaces. Why not hit the space bar two times? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this could be a formatting choice at the beginning of a line... though why "2" I don't know. A deprecated SP1 with just a single &emsp would do, to tell people to use the coded version instead of a temlate. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as with the others. JIMptalk·cont 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have joined Sp1 to this discussion as it is even less useful (returns a single non-breaking space: ). Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (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 section.