Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3

Template:Christ

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!) 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too long for article namespace Docu 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hideboxed, so doesn't seem that long. --ais523 12:45, 4 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete that's hideous. We have portals for that. --Doc 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Hideboxing is a useful way of dealing with complicated structures, and use thereof is certainly no reason for deletion - I think we might even want to encourage it for complicated topics or ones where the templates are in danger of overwhelming multiple articles (some of the school system nav templates, for example, which display as prominently as this does). The color scheme maybe could use a little work to be less prominent, but that is an editing concern not a deletion reason. I just found this useful for navigation; this got me to a group of Christian theology articles I needed where neither Template:Christianity nor Template:Christian theology included the desired links. We don't exactly enourage links to portals, so I'm doubtful they are of great significance. For example, neither of those two alternative templates has a link to Portal:Christianity and I've never noticed one in an article either. GRBerry 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Struck opinion, the comments by Gmaxwell convinced me I hadn't thought it through adequately. GRBerry 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it is bigger than half the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny (talk • contribs)
Delete Hideboxes are highly inappropriate for articles, they have poor accessibility, limited browser compatibility (these articles blow up on my cellphone), and they look utterly idiotic when printed when otherwise our articles look rather good. --Gmaxwell 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- another point, it adds about 50kB of HTML to the article and greatly slows the load time on my blackberry (which also doesn't hide the text). --Gmaxwell 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least trim drastically. Far too large and complex for a navbox; use of hidden structures is hostile to people who are using browsers other than IE or Firefox. (I dread to think what this looks like on my Blackberry.) Kelly Martin (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looks more like a portal... Delete ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a portal disguised as a template. ^Blank ^Verse 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make smaller (much, much smaller, with no hideboxes) or Delete. (It's only three weeks old, BTW.) CWC(talk) 22:28, 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:Arsenal F.C. Reserves 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nav template for reserve Arsenal F.C. players. Most of these links are red and it is clear that they would probably fail WP:BIO, which states for sportspersons the notability criterion is:

Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.

These players are reserve squad members rather than first-team squad members - none are listed in the official first-team squad list and only one has played a first-team game. Articles should not be created about them and so it follows that neither should there be a nav template for the articles. Delete. Qwghlm 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 81.77.123.4 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robwingfield ^(talk) 09:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kingjamie 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 7 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:KROQ

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!) 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the articles that the template links to have been deleted, so it has no use anymore. --musicpvm 20:12, 3 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:Culture-africa

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!) 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, per Template:Africa in topic. Depending on when you read this, I am/have already replaced these with WP:AWB. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:50, 3 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:Africa militaries

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!) 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, per Template:Africa in topic. Depending on when you read this, I am/have already replaced these with WP:AWB. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:50, 3 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:911tm

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. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the "group" is arbitrary, and the infobox is too long. (As an aditional point, the [[:category:Islam]] is bogus, but that could just be removed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another POV pushing vehicle by striver. --Peephole 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
obvious Keep only people that self-indetify with the movement are included. Or is nom stating that they do not? Infobox being too long? Cat:Islam being in the article? That is only content disputes, three very weak arguements to delete. --Striver 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Only one or two of the articles in the infobox belongs there. The rest are not part of the "9/11 Truth Movement", even as you've defined it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant POV pushing. Please let's not label conspiracy theories "truth" with these kinds of excuses. Weregerbil 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having "truth" is no more pov than having "christ". Template:Christianity does not imply that Jesus (pbuh) is christ. Nor does "truth" imply anything, its just a name. --Striver 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, membership is arbitrary. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it arbitary if they are self-indetified? If there are any editorial problems, solve them via the talk page. Further, the "Truth" part is not a statment, its the name of the movement. If that was pov, the main article would be deleted, but it is not. --Striver 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, ill remove the members section for the duration of the tfd, so we can focus on the validity of the template itself. --Striver 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better not to sanitize the template temporarily for the duration of this discussion? Maybe let people see what they are really discussing, rather than try to squeeze a cleaned up version through TfD and then restore it to its intended full glory? Weregerbil 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better not use arguements such as "Please let's not label conspiracy theories "truth" with these kinds of excuses.", when you know that it is not the intent? --Striver 09:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know what you claim I know. Please do not make false claims about what other people think. You didn't address the questions by the way. Weregerbil 11:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all i care, the names can remain out of the template, the template is not about them. --Striver 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "infobox" is poor choice of wording. Arbitrary, POV pushing. Let's merge all these articles into one so an "infobox" is unnecessary. --Tbeatty 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Merge all articles into one? And how is that a constructive arguement? --Striver 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need all these articles (and therefore navigation "infoboxes") on basically one topic. One article with about 50 words ought to cover it.--Tbeatty 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, then why is Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 51 k long, and 9/11 conspiracy theories 125(!!!) K long? Then why have all the article in the template survived a delete/merge vote? Propably because you are wrong. --Striver 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're bloated beyond belief. Much like the topic. And the last vote that survived was advertised on a loony tunes site and the SPA's took off the tin foil to come out and vote. --Tbeatty 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the template, stop this POV-pushing nonsense (I'm talking about the usual suspects' time-wasting XfDs). All the arguments presented in these nominations are all discussion page material, not grounds for deletion. PizzaMargherita 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia editors do not need to "arbitrarily" decide who belongs to the Movement because they self-identify. Other complaints, such as "infobox is too long," are reasons to improve, not delete, the template. --Hyperbole 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TruthSpreader^Talk 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely a promotional effort. The problem is less the template than that there are so many pages that we need navigation aids. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one was a good one, "The problem is less the template than that there are so many pages that we need navigation aids". in other words, the template is fine, but i hate the topic. And God forbid we start creating a navigation aid! --Striver 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I honestly have no idea what you're trying to express here. "The problem is less the template than that there are so many pages that we need navigation aids?" Help me out. Also, I find it peculiar that you would vote to delete the template, and then make improvements to it - with the intention that they be deleted? --Hyperbole 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — If restricted to those who self-identify with the "9/11 Truth Movement" under that name, it might be acceptable. But it does not presently meet that requirement, nor is it likely to, as long as Striver is an editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. --Mmx1 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does that mean? Is that a new policy? --Striver 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I woul like to point that the Admin Tom harrison that voted to delete this template has now inflated the template with material that i (the creator) do not support. I hope he did not do that hoping that more people would vote delete. --Striver 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has added individuals who are associated with the articles you already put in the template. They're as much a part of the "9-11 Truth Movement" as anyone you had put in prior. Beyond this, templates are community projects rather than the work of a single creator.--Rosicrucian 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- as long as the template is reasonable about the contents! For example, Morgan Reynolds thinks that real planes didn't hit at any of the crash sites and has attacked Steven Jones personally in his recent paper. Striver, if you look on any popular forum, like 911blogger's, even the most out there types of people now see Reynolds as 'disinformation.' You don't seem to make any distinction between people that are pushing LUNACY that almost everyone recognizes as utter lunacy, and people who are doing real science and real investigation of the issue, or asking legitimate questions. Do YOU, Striver, believe that the planes never hit the WTC???? Then why promote those who do, despite the fact that 99.9% of those in the movement do think that real planes hit the WTC? When you put Morgan Reynolds in a list with everyone else, you are promoting people who say this, and it only makes everyone else look nuts. You also promote people who openly attack other researchers, like Victor Thorn and Lisa Guiliani, WING TV -- they are never invited to anything, are not interviewed, not featured, are in no news articles . . . even 911blogger won't link to them because they are so offensive. It's NOT good to just pack lists with every name you can find. Some of those names are not actively engaged in the movement, but are working to disrupt from within. You only help those efforts by giving them a place along with the people doing strong and rational work. bov 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bov, i [^{[deprecated source?]} know] that MR is only a dissinformant, but i was not aiming at making any distinctions... lets talk about that in the main article talk page.--Striver 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a laundry list including many non-notable and barely notable items, several of which are in AfD. GabrielF 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Morgan Reynolds remains on the template list I change my vote to delete. bov 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's appropriate at all to delete a template over a single bullet point. That's a content dispute, not an argument over whether the template should exist or not.--Rosicrucian 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it means the template could not be maintained to be encyclopedic, it would be a valid reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Along the lines of the above comments, I see that Tom Flocco is also listed on this chart at the top. Laughable! Tom Flocco has done a few real pieces but mostly done horrendous work that discredits everyone. He wrote an article that pretends that Barbara Olsen, who was on the doomed Flight 77 (which hit the Pentagon), was really arrested on the "Polish - Austrian" border.[1] Every verifiable piece of information in Flocco's article is provable as wrong. There is not even any such border! Not to mention that there is no evidence Olsen is alive. Tom Flocco should *never* be listed in a short-list of anything. Locewtus 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this would be better and less intrusive as a catagory.--Crossmr 00:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both have their place and are needed, having a category or not having one has nothing to do with this template.--Striver 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ugug, per nom we don't need random tinfoilhat templates-Doc 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per nom, though I think some of the problems can be fixed. The infobox itself seems rather pointless. --Wildnox 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom --Jhortman 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fringe ideas. Pseudotumor 17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wacko nonsense conspiracy theory junk science doesn't need to be organized, it needs to be deleted.--MONGO 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per comment of PizzaMargherita and truthspreader. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Three-fourths of the contents are non-notable and should not even be articles. Levi P. 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many non-Wikipedians think "I saw it in Wikipedia" = "It must be true". Until the average web user learns better, more and more people will try to use Wikipedia's notional authority to promote their causes. This template is part of such an attempt. We need to tackle this problem ASAP. CWC(talk) 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:C'mon, the movement is everywhere: media, Internet, on the streets. As for the previous comment: What a template has to do with "promoting"?? This template is an attempt to organize articles which deal with 911 CTs an people around it. Hey: even TIME wrote an article that CTs become a part of political reality. Of courese template and articles should be kept NPOV, as usual. I am very disappointed seeing so many delete and the only explanation being "fringe ideas","POV pushing". Please try to make it NPOV and that's it.--SalvNaut 20:00, 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:Infobox Kick Ya Out Of The Fat

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!) 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Infobox" whose only purpose is to promote an album by a non-notable band whose article already got speedied. Unused except on creator's user and user talk pages. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robwingfield ^(talk) 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --rogerd 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejiduce. -- Avi 21:27, 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:UKWildcatsCoach

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!) 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:UKyFbCoach. rogerd 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are indisputably two nearly identical templates, but the one proposed for deletion was the first created and is in the format preferred by the College Football Project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable. Instead, I would propose that the other template, Template:UKyFbCoach, should be deleted, as it does not fit the naming pattern for these templates and does not include coach Bernie Shively. Not that it otherwise matters too much which one is kept. Kgwo1972 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the UKyBbCoach template does not conform to the naming convention in the College Football Project, it doesn't matter that much and rogerd seems adamant about keeping his template. So, I don't object to the deletion of the nominated template. Kgwo1972 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This so called "naming convention" does not specify what sport it refers to. There is also a {{UKyBbCoach}}, which refers to the better known University of Kentucky basketball coaches. --rogerd 19:14, 3 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.