Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 7

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7

Template:SFSL

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 sure, why not a la delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed template to more appropriate title consistant with wikiproject roller coasters (Template:SFSL Coasters). SFSL might have some benefit elsewhere. No pages now link to SFSL. Irongargoyle 22:16, 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.

Multiple country infoboxes

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 all // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infoboxes. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and this one. Most of these also have fair use image violations. The relevant articles use Template:Infobox Country (or Template:Infobox UK nation for the NI article) in line with current wikiprojects. --Bob 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone should nominate the "Economy of *" series of tables, too (such as Template:Economy of France table), also single use infoboxes. bogdan 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All have been superseded by the {{Infobox Country}} template. I created the Vatican City one because at the time it was impossible to exclude the unneeded sections. --physicq210 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? Besides "SomeCountry infobox", there could be templates of other similar names. In the past, there were

A good way to check is to go from "What links here" of a currency article. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. ^Blank ^Verse 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cain Mosni 22:23, 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:EDinfo

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 doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is intended to be put on deleted pages to link to Encyclopedia damatica. We really don't need this. bogdan 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you suggest people looking for information on those topics go? Believe it or not, this and this have quite a lot of information. I do not intend on saying put it on every deleted page, just ones that some people might be interested in. Many of these articles have long VFD histories, showing that some people do want to know information about them. --Einsidler 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is to provide encyclopedic content. If some topic was deemed unencyclopedic or not notable by the AfD, then we should simply not cover it. bogdan 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - 'Not notable' is quite a broad term, what is notable to one person is not necisarily notable to someone else, eg List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. And if you check the AfDs, you will see many people are interested in these topics. I just want to provide a link so people can find information without having to put this stuff in Wikipedia. To quote one of the wikipedia higher-ups, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." So why is some of that human knowledge not allowed to be included in the sum. It exists and people want to know, so there should at least be a link to the information. --Einsidler 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it's a broad term, that's why we have individual AfDs for each article. Anyway, I don't think every kind of information can be included in the "sum of of all human knowledge". Otherwise, this wiki would be swamped of stuff like "Ode To a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning". bogdan 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia was the second thing to come up when I googled that. Also, many people vote delete on stuff like Encyclopedia damatica and Myg0t for personal reasons, such as being victims of trolling. Many people want to know the facts about these things, and since wikipedia administration is not mature enough to provide it, then it makes sense to direct people somewhere that is. --Einsidler 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't generally provide templated links to non-sister-projects. Work within the system, don't create endruns around deletion to increase ED's visiblity. -- nae'blis 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not have a sister-project about 'happenings on the interwebs'. I just want people to be able to find the information they want, and if Wikipedia policy doesn't like the topic, why not send them somewhere else? Check the talk pages, many people want to undelete as this interests them. How would you like it if someone deleted everything you are interested in? --Einsidler 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for trying to make it personal. If there are articles on whiskies, neopaganism, or The Wheel of Time that are unencyclopedic, let's delete them! I've voted delete before on the 2nd of those, and am working on merging down some of the WoT cruft. One bad article, even if you had an example, is not a reason to keep another bad article, and as Weregerbil said, we're not here to be a directory of the Intarweb, we're an encyclopedia. People can use Google or go directly to ED for topics that don't have articles here (I personally disagreed with the myg0t/ED deletions, but that doesn't make linkspamming okay, either). -- nae'blis 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rootology (T) 15:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone let me know how this pans out. I really do like the general idea of wikipedia, but it seems to me that the beurocracy gets in the way of providing information to readers. I do not edit wikipedia much, but I do read a hell of a lot of it and quite often I find legitimate interests of mine WP:SALTed. Myg0t is what finally ticked me off enough to try and do something about it. I may just be one luser with a computer and an internet connection, but the whole principle of wikipedia is on my side. --Einsidler 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a link farm or a vehicle for advertising some web site. Weregerbil 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertising was not the intention of creating this template, pointing people in the right direction for information was. I think if this was used on 3–6 pages, that would be quite good. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest not advertising a specific web site even on 3–6 pages. Weregerbil 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see a template which links to an article referring to Uncyclopedia, ED, and other weird Wikis, but not just ED alone. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is an uncyclopedia link template, pretty sure I've seen it around. As for other weird wikis, I think wikis such as the esoteric programming wiki could do with similar templates. So rather than delete this one, I propose we create more. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete damatica is not the place to go if one wants valid information on myg0t and whatnot - they are the place to go to make fun of said topics. Besides, don't the hardcore wikiholics hate ED? T.K. ^TALK 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're quite funny sometimes, but that's not the point here. :-) bogdan 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ED does write informative, factual and occationally well-referenced articles on such topics. Its just that 99% of the other stuff is (highly humourous) crap. Hardcore wikiholics or 'Wikipedophiles' hate ED coz it takes the piss out of them. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to advertise ED. Kusma (討論) 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FACT ALERT!:
This is about providing links to information on a small minority of articles, not about advertising or link-spam. --Einsidler 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use attention-grabbing devices; let's give everyone's opinions the same weight please. I would suggest not putting "information" links (purposeful sneer quotes!) even to a small minority of articles to promote some web site. Weregerbil 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete. ^Blank ^Verse 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. If it's not bollocks then it won't be deleted from WP anyway. Or to put it another way, if it is deleted, it doesn't merit consideration... There are plenty of other means of researching non-encyclopaedic material. Einsidler already mentioned one, although in opposition to the delete nomination: Google, and there are countless more. WP is not a dumping ground for any old information, nor a links directory, nor an advice guide. Anyone who uses it as their primary search for web browsing is missing the point, as is any suggestion that there's any merit to linking out of pages that have been deleted. (Note: deleted, expunged, removed, and hence not there - to add the template is to recreate something which was deemed unmeritoious in the first place.) Cain Mosni 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposed ArbCom decision, even if the decision is eventually rejected. Change to strong delete if ArbCom actually make this decision; the decision would cause any user using this template to be blocked, which would make it kind if pointless. --ais523 12:13, 14 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.

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7

Template:SFSL

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 sure, why not a la delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed template to more appropriate title consistant with wikiproject roller coasters (Template:SFSL Coasters). SFSL might have some benefit elsewhere. No pages now link to SFSL. Irongargoyle 22:16, 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.

Multiple country infoboxes

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 all // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infoboxes. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and this one. Most of these also have fair use image violations. The relevant articles use Template:Infobox Country (or Template:Infobox UK nation for the NI article) in line with current wikiprojects. --Bob 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone should nominate the "Economy of *" series of tables, too (such as Template:Economy of France table), also single use infoboxes. bogdan 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All have been superseded by the {{Infobox Country}} template. I created the Vatican City one because at the time it was impossible to exclude the unneeded sections. --physicq210 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? Besides "SomeCountry infobox", there could be templates of other similar names. In the past, there were

A good way to check is to go from "What links here" of a currency article. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. ^Blank ^Verse 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cain Mosni 22:23, 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:EDinfo

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 doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is intended to be put on deleted pages to link to Encyclopedia damatica. We really don't need this. bogdan 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you suggest people looking for information on those topics go? Believe it or not, this and this have quite a lot of information. I do not intend on saying put it on every deleted page, just ones that some people might be interested in. Many of these articles have long VFD histories, showing that some people do want to know information about them. --Einsidler 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is to provide encyclopedic content. If some topic was deemed unencyclopedic or not notable by the AfD, then we should simply not cover it. bogdan 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - 'Not notable' is quite a broad term, what is notable to one person is not necisarily notable to someone else, eg List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. And if you check the AfDs, you will see many people are interested in these topics. I just want to provide a link so people can find information without having to put this stuff in Wikipedia. To quote one of the wikipedia higher-ups, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." So why is some of that human knowledge not allowed to be included in the sum. It exists and people want to know, so there should at least be a link to the information. --Einsidler 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it's a broad term, that's why we have individual AfDs for each article. Anyway, I don't think every kind of information can be included in the "sum of of all human knowledge". Otherwise, this wiki would be swamped of stuff like "Ode To a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning". bogdan 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia was the second thing to come up when I googled that. Also, many people vote delete on stuff like Encyclopedia damatica and Myg0t for personal reasons, such as being victims of trolling. Many people want to know the facts about these things, and since wikipedia administration is not mature enough to provide it, then it makes sense to direct people somewhere that is. --Einsidler 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't generally provide templated links to non-sister-projects. Work within the system, don't create endruns around deletion to increase ED's visiblity. -- nae'blis 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not have a sister-project about 'happenings on the interwebs'. I just want people to be able to find the information they want, and if Wikipedia policy doesn't like the topic, why not send them somewhere else? Check the talk pages, many people want to undelete as this interests them. How would you like it if someone deleted everything you are interested in? --Einsidler 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for trying to make it personal. If there are articles on whiskies, neopaganism, or The Wheel of Time that are unencyclopedic, let's delete them! I've voted delete before on the 2nd of those, and am working on merging down some of the WoT cruft. One bad article, even if you had an example, is not a reason to keep another bad article, and as Weregerbil said, we're not here to be a directory of the Intarweb, we're an encyclopedia. People can use Google or go directly to ED for topics that don't have articles here (I personally disagreed with the myg0t/ED deletions, but that doesn't make linkspamming okay, either). -- nae'blis 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rootology (T) 15:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone let me know how this pans out. I really do like the general idea of wikipedia, but it seems to me that the beurocracy gets in the way of providing information to readers. I do not edit wikipedia much, but I do read a hell of a lot of it and quite often I find legitimate interests of mine WP:SALTed. Myg0t is what finally ticked me off enough to try and do something about it. I may just be one luser with a computer and an internet connection, but the whole principle of wikipedia is on my side. --Einsidler 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a link farm or a vehicle for advertising some web site. Weregerbil 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertising was not the intention of creating this template, pointing people in the right direction for information was. I think if this was used on 3–6 pages, that would be quite good. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest not advertising a specific web site even on 3–6 pages. Weregerbil 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see a template which links to an article referring to Uncyclopedia, ED, and other weird Wikis, but not just ED alone. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is an uncyclopedia link template, pretty sure I've seen it around. As for other weird wikis, I think wikis such as the esoteric programming wiki could do with similar templates. So rather than delete this one, I propose we create more. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete damatica is not the place to go if one wants valid information on myg0t and whatnot - they are the place to go to make fun of said topics. Besides, don't the hardcore wikiholics hate ED? T.K. ^TALK 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're quite funny sometimes, but that's not the point here. :-) bogdan 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ED does write informative, factual and occationally well-referenced articles on such topics. Its just that 99% of the other stuff is (highly humourous) crap. Hardcore wikiholics or 'Wikipedophiles' hate ED coz it takes the piss out of them. --Einsidler 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to advertise ED. Kusma (討論) 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FACT ALERT!:
This is about providing links to information on a small minority of articles, not about advertising or link-spam. --Einsidler 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use attention-grabbing devices; let's give everyone's opinions the same weight please. I would suggest not putting "information" links (purposeful sneer quotes!) even to a small minority of articles to promote some web site. Weregerbil 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete. ^Blank ^Verse 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. If it's not bollocks then it won't be deleted from WP anyway. Or to put it another way, if it is deleted, it doesn't merit consideration... There are plenty of other means of researching non-encyclopaedic material. Einsidler already mentioned one, although in opposition to the delete nomination: Google, and there are countless more. WP is not a dumping ground for any old information, nor a links directory, nor an advice guide. Anyone who uses it as their primary search for web browsing is missing the point, as is any suggestion that there's any merit to linking out of pages that have been deleted. (Note: deleted, expunged, removed, and hence not there - to add the template is to recreate something which was deemed unmeritoious in the first place.) Cain Mosni 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposed ArbCom decision, even if the decision is eventually rejected. Change to strong delete if ArbCom actually make this decision; the decision would cause any user using this template to be blocked, which would make it kind if pointless. --ais523 12:13, 14 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.