Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

September 10

Template:Infobox Extratropical Cyclone

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 deletion of both. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on one article that contains original research and copyright violations. It incorporates a category system, which does not exist for extratropical cyclones, and has no real hope of being used on any other articles. Also nominating Template:Infobox Extratropical Cyclone 01A, as instead of using the original template, the creator made a separate template for the article in question. Core des at talk. o_O 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the category scale is OR itself. I also note the existence of the well-constructed {{infobox winter storm}} and {{infobox hurricane}} either of which could be adapted into a good template for this kind of weather phenomenon (should a need arise).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No encyclopedic use will come from this as it's OR. Delete. – Ch acor 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- NORTH ^talk 08:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{infobox hurricane}} makes the need for these templates redundant. Electrawn 22:01, 11 September 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.

Template:Los Angeles USD

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is already ugly and large. If it is completely populated with all of the schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, there would be 1,035 total schools [1]. This is a very good example of where a category (see Los Angeles Unified School District) or a list is much better than a template. This template should be deleted post-haste. ^Blank ^Verse 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete!. ^Blank ^Verse 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though, it can be changed to reflect only high schools and/or middle schools - Elementary schools can be given a different template. Or it can be divided by LAUSD administrative region. WhisperToMe 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 221 high schools in the LAUSD, which would still make a much too large template. Even dividing by district, the templates would average 130 schools per template, while creating a less than useful template, IMHO. ^Blank ^Verse 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better handled by category or list. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. --TMF ^{T - C} 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- NORTH ^talk 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better handled by category or list --Bob 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too broad a subject to be navigated by template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,agree with above comments Jorobeq 14 September 2006
Delete A template for this subject will be too unwieldy, defeating the purpose. --physicq210 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Dwnsjane2 17:32, 17 September 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.

Template:User AS400 CL

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 (recreate on userpsace if desired) -- Drini 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New replacement outside of main template space is at {{User:UserBox/AS400-CL}}. — MrDolomite | Talk 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not just edit your changes into the existing template (which also retains it's edit history). - jc37 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MrDolomite's trying to implement the German Userbox Solution; he's saying that as the template has been germanized, the template-space template can go. However, I'm not expressing an opinion on this one because I don't want to get caught up in the Userbox Wars. --ais523 10:40, 11 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete While a Move is better, 5 pages link to the userbox. Electrawn 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops, yes it was a GUS and a rewrite of one of my first stabs at userboxes. *shudder* Oh, the code :) Was going to do the move, but I had already created the page, so I couldn't move over top of it. I'll keep that in mind for next time. However the closing admin does it is fine, but one of those templates has to go :) Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You could always try boldly putting {{db-histmerge}} on your version to see what happens... --ais523 16:38, 13 September 2006 (U T C)

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.

Template:False accuser

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 delete per CSDs A6 and T1. Nandesuka 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack template - created with no community discussion or consensus - probably a speedy candidate SFC9394 19:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A template created in order to counter false allegations of sockpuppetry. Orkadian 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have suffered at the hands of false sockpuppetry accusations. (Indeed, User:Orkadian, above, has even been accused of being a sockpuppet of me!) It is one form of harassment that has put me off contributing to Wikipedia. This template certainly has my consensus! Mallimak 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors - please be aware this template has no consensus, policy, guideline or discussion to back it up - it was created unilaterally by Orkadian who has been engaging in a borderline harassment of another editor, and created to aid in that attack. Convenient that mailmark is back on the scene - just as one of Orkadian's templates is up for deletion. SFC9394 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put everyone in the picture, I am not conveniently "back on the scene". User:Orkadian contacted me to tell me what is going on. He is sick to death of User:Mais oui!'s harassement. He had barely started out on Wikipedia when he was struck down with sockpuppet accusations from Mais oui! that he was me. I had received so much harassment from User:Mais oui! that I gave up contributing. (All my edits are monitored by Mais oui! and reverted.) There seems to be no defence against harassment on Wikipedia. I fully support Orkadian here. Mallimak 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Orkadian contacted me to tell me what is going on" - his contribs say he hasn't posted on your talk page in a week. Something doesn't add up. SFC9394 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are not the only way in the universe to contact somebody! Mallimak 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is - if I was wrongly accused of being a sock then the first thing I would do would be to not engage in unlogged communication with that person. This isn't the place for a sock discussion - but the editing patterns of both editors is highly suggestive of multiple accounts. Tonight Orkadian edits up to 20:56 - I put a template up for deletion - then 6 minutes later you are editing (after 3 days of not posting anything) and nothing more is heard from Orkadian for the evening. Indeed you post an afd notice on a user's talk page, [2], before you even post here. Why on earth would a user independent of Orkadian be posting such messages before even commenting on the deletion itself? TBH if you were sensible you would drop the sock - that would allow you to fight whatever battles you want here at WP (and god knows there are plenty of people who are here to do nothing but fight battles). Operating with socks is just going to lead to any point you try and make being completely undermined. SFC9394 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drop the sock"! There is no sock, except in Mais oui!'s twisted imagination. Can somebody please do something about Mais oui! and his constant harassment? I became a user to make contributions to Wikipedia in a subject area I know a lot about, not to "fight battles". I never asked for this (nor Orkadian either). Orkadian gives a reasonable explanation as to why we have similar IP addresses - we both live in Orkney! And yes, since all this nonsense started and he started be attacked like me we have got to know each other personally. Mallimak 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are we going to have a "false accuser of false accusery" template too? ;) j/k I don't see this is any worse than the sockpuppet templat unless it is misused. Is it possible to put these in userspace and avoid upsetting people? FWIW, i'm not a fan of the sockpuppet template, it is OK at wiki to edit under one username as long as you don't use them both to advocate the same position or get around blocks, yet I see allegattions of "socks" whenever it is uncovered that one user uses different names. Justforasecond 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. ^Blank ^Verse 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack template. --Core des at talk. o_O 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack template. Either someone acted in good faith adding a Sockpuppet tag, in which case why attack them, or they have a habit of adding them on little or no evidence, in which case work with them and explain why this is a Bad Idea, or if they continue and are disruptive to the project, use dispute resolution, or if this is all they do for no reason, they're a bv and therefore ban them. This template is worse than useless; it exists only to attack and does not address the possible situations where this template might, by a hostile and childish person, be considered applicable. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More harm than worth. If falsely accused, then the sockpuppet check will come up with no evidence and will be removed. It has happened to me. Sad, but responding with this template is worse. -- Avi 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete RN 21:32, 10 September 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.

Template:Philippines

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is 100% redundant with Template:Indy Philippine cities, Template:Metro Manila, and Template:Philippine regions. It's unnecessary, and I suggest it be deleted. --Coffee 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this template is same as Template:Indy Philippine cities. Daniel's page ☎ 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Howard the Duck 09:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, instead of deleting this outright, why don't we make this look like {{USPoliticalDivisions}}, but instead of states, we list the provinces? --Howard the Duck 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that would be a different issue altogether. Seav set up the framework long ago with Template:Luzon lateral, Template:Visayas lateral and Template:Mindanao lateral fulfilling the purpose of a "provinces template". Your suggestion would be a template that merges those templates, which might be too large, though I wouldn't be outright opposed to it. :p --Coffee 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno, but we'd add the edited Philippines template only on province pages. Then the lateral templates will only include the regions (all of them). What do you think? --Howard the Duck 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the template will be deleted, I'd recommend that it'll be replaced with content found at User:Howard the Duck/Pinoy. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 14 September 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.

Template:Usbob FC squad

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 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only being used by two members on their user pages. If they want to use it so much, they can use the coding on their pages instead. -- Mattythewhite 14:16, 10/9/06

Delete - A couple months back I voted in the deletion of an article they had created on "Usbob FC". They make the odd constructive edit, but, to be honest, they seem to spend the majority of time editing their userpages: User:Martin Le Roy, User:Marky 1987. The whole thing is a bit too much myspace and not enough wikipedia for my liking - user pages should generally contain things relevant to editing work here, not people profiles for school football teams. SFC9394 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User navboxes should not exist in the template space. Qwghlm 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful for Wikipedia. Punkmorten 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kingjamie 20:11, 17 September 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.

Template:Wars of Israel

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 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date and nothing links here -- Kendrick7 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of information should be, generally, conveyed by categories. Pavel Vozenilek 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict is clearly better. Hbdragon88 19:52, 13 September 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.

Template:Infobox Israel-Lebanon conflict

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 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a single-article transclusion of {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; delete it like all the others. Kirill Lokshin 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; orphaned. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:52, 11 September 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.

Template:Unproven sockpuppeteer

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 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason ever to tag user accounts as being sockpuppets if it can't be proved. It looks like this would only be used for harrasment. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the benefit of accused users, not to harrass them. The current template is being used for users that are not proven sockpuppeteers. This provides an alternative. Justforasecond 05:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Template:Sockpuppet for when there is a shred of evidence but not fully proven. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. So there is a template that is used when it can't be proven? Why is the newer one more harrassing? It goes out of its way to assume good faith. Justforasecond 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I think this will bring more harm than good, and should be removed. -- Avi 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlankVerse (talk • contribs)
Keep Justforasecond 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little benefit, extreme abuse potential. RN 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . The distinction between the "sockpuppet" and "sockpuppetCheckUser" templates already makes this clear enough. Nandesuka 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Are you guys saying there is abuse potential or this duplicates a template already out there? Cause if its both, we should probably delete the other template that says the same thing....

Delete. Abuse or weaseling are the only possible uses I see for this template. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{sockpuppet}} Users should be able to have both the accuser and a means for simple defense in the template. Electrawn 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used anywhere. I thought this was a template that could've been used on some number of pages, in which case I'd want to see redirected it to Template:sockpuppeteer, but its brand new. If you're going to tag a userpage with {{sockpuppeteer}}, you should have some good grounds for it to begin with. The sockpuppeteer template already says "suspected". Kevin_b_er 00:31, 14 September 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.

Template:Hawaii_State_Highways

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 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates tend to be red link farms, and a list and category are much useful. (Although this needs to be checked against the current list before deletion, as it is inaccurate too). VA's got deleted, OR too... Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list page is highly preferred over this method. Also, if browsing the state highway system is an issue, there's no reason why a browse template/browse in the infobox can't be used. Precedent here at TfD also shows that templates showing the entire state highway system are candidates for deletion for the reasons given in the nomination (lists and categories are preferred). --TMF ^{T - C} 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... Hawaii is messed up right now with two lists, an incorrect NC on one of them... once the poll finishes we need to get that straightened out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TwinsMetsFan. Michael 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. ^Blank ^Verse 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some Wikipedians use this template for freeways in Hawaii, but Template for Deletion shows that most of Freeway templates are candidated for deletion. Actually, We need this template. Daniel's page ☎ 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some state highway templates have been previously kept, such as West Virginia. Oregon was deleted because it was too big; the same objection was made for Ohio though it was not officially deleted. This Hawaii template is small in comparision even to Template:U.S. Routes, let alone Template:WV_Highways. Hawaii highways do not overlap with any other state (obviously) and the template is not redundant. If redlinks are a problem, remove the redlinks, not the entire navigation box. Gimmetrow 23:18, 11 September 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.