Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10

Template:Obscene

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 deleted by RyanGerbil10 per the consensus in {{sobscene}}'s deletion on January 7 2007. --ais523 11:36, 15 January 2007 (U T C)

Ineffective counter-vandalism template, which, IMHO, might as well scream "Don't shove beans up your nose!" (remember, they were adding obscenities on purpose just to be counterproductive). I've found it to be completely counter-productive on vandal patrol. --Patstuart^talk|edits 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obscene vandalism shouldn't be rewarded by special treatment. Also if a photo was not used, the template is just giving vandals new ideas. Textbook example of WP:BEANS. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the fact that obscene vandalism should be treated like other vandalism, it is an insanely bad idea to explain to a vandal how to offend the most people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also I rarely see the template in use. Arjun 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obscenities are blatant vandalism, so use {{blatantvandal}} instead. -- Kesh 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nim -Doc^g 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I encounter multiple time obscene language but I don't see a use to categorise obscene stuff elsewhere than in normal vandalism. -- Esurnir 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too serious for vandals; more encouraging than anything. -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template is crap encouraging even more crap.--C J King 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BlatantVandal is the same as this. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:56, 14 January 2007 (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:Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to Template:French overseas departments and territories. It just adds template clutter to articles when the aforementioned template is more than sufficient. --Bob 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate. Arjun 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! Including this template content only under Template:French overseas departments and territories denies the territorial claims of Madagascar and Mauritius, which are not recognised by France, and accordingly deletion will not reflect a NPOV. Would deletion of a seperate Canada template be justified because it is already covered in a North America template?--Wuyanxin 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of these islands are de jure French possessions. In fact, at least according to the articles, only the Glorioso Islands even face a counterclaim (from both Madagascar and the Seychelles, but the French have colonization and establishment history dating back to before 1900). I see no reason why the template structure indicated by Grcampbell would provide a POV issue. Serpent's Choice 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. My scanning of the article did miss some of the claims. However, my original contention, that these islands are de jure French possessions, stands. While it is certainly appropriate to make note of the disputes, in each of these cases, France has the primary recognized claim. The CIA Factbook considers these as the Iles Eparses (scattered islands) collectively, and describes them as "a group of five French entities" under the charge of the "Senior Administrator of the Territory of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (TAAF)" as of 3 Jan 2005 (in this regard, our entries are out of date). The presence of disputes with Mauritius (Tromelin) and Madagascar (the rest, including Bassas da India) are noted. Nevertheless, the US government considers them French. The International Organisation for Standardisation considers them French (they share the RE code used for Réunion). The United Nations considers them French (and assigns them a code of TF, for French Territory). The disputes here aren't really the same sort of thing as the Spratly Islands or Liancourt Rock or even the the southern Kuril Islands. Prevailing world opinion, at least at the moment, is that they are French. Serpent's Choice 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bread (talk • contribs)
~~Very Strong Keep~~ Comment Serpent's Choice comments and basis for deletion are inaccurate. As an example see the following quote from one of the articles "Tromelin Island was occupied by France in 1954, but it is claimed by Mauritius". And no one actually is resident on Tromelin Island! These islands clearly are just scattered islands in the Indian Ocean. To delete the template and allow the content only under the template of French overseas departments and territories is very clearly imposing the POV of the French claims over the POV of Mauritius and Madagascar. The template was established, and to delete it is most likely a violation of the NPOV principle supposedly for the only reason of reducing "template clutter". Err on the side of the fundamental NPOV principle and do not delete.Wuyanxin 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wuyanxin, you cannot vote twice. You may want to change it to Comment, as a further explanation of your vote. -- Kesh 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Thank you Kesh, amendment has been made. This is clearly a fundamental NPOV issue. Further comment on how inaccurate Serpent's Choice statements' are: Of the 5 seperate articles on the 5 islands, 4 of the articles are very clear in stating that the islands are claimed by either Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles or Comoros. Therefore the only valid or reliable reason put forward to delete the template is to clear up "clutter", which most certainly should not over-ride a NPOV issue. Wuyanxin 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wuyanxin RaveenS

Keep. Not all islands in the Indian Ocean are French territories.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually, all islands within the Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean ARE French territories... Also, the Template:French overseas departments and territories actually states which islands are claimed by other nations, thus nullifying any point put forward by those voting keep. Also, the closing admin might want to look at Special:Contributions/Wuyanxin--Bob 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Grand Slam's comment brings up a point: any template of this name and title which excludes Diego Garcia and Kerguelen is at least misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 16 January 2007 (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:Announced product

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This newly-created template is almost completely redundant to {{Future product}}. Per Wikipedia's policies on WP:NOT being a crystal ball, requiring verifiable information, and collating such information from reliable sources, there should almost never be a case where {{Future product}} would be used that isn't an announced product in some fashion. Let's avoid template creep as much as possible. -- -/- Warren 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this template to make a clear distinction between a "future product that may contain preliminary or speculative information, and may not reflect the final version of the product" (See {{Future product}}), and one about which all specs have been officially announced: "It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only." (see {{announced product}}). This is not necessarily template creep, but a very useful distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not much of a distinction, Jossi. Reliable sources are absolutely essential in every single Wikipedia article. Also, it's completely unprovable that the information won't change before release... remember last year when the Macbook Pro was to be released, and the specs changed between announcement and release? That's why the future product template reads as it is. -/- Warren 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MacBook pro specs where not officially released at that time. Same with the iTV (now Apple TV. In the case of the iPhone, for example, there are exact specs published. That is a significant difference, Warren. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specs of the iPhone have not yet been released. It's not known what processor it uses, for example. Also, the details may very well change before release; the FCC may require changes to the iPhone before it issues approval. - Brian Kendig 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletionism is evil. CygnusPius 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very different from {{Future product}}. Sfacets 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Very different" in what way, exactly? {{Announced product}} says that the article may only contain information from reliable sources, but this applies to all Wikipedia articles. {{Future product}} says that the article may contain only preliminary or speculative information which might not reflect the product's final version, but this applies to all announced/unreleased products. I would agree with you that the templates are very different if an article about a future product is allowed to contain information from unverified sources, or if an announced product can be definitely proven not to change at all before release. - 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I'd argue that this template is useful, and that {{Future product}} should be deleted (or renamed to {{Vaporware}}, except that it already exists) for the reasons you describe. Argyriou (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Future product}} or {{Vaporware}} Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Identical in purpose to {{Future product}}. An article about a product which has been "officially announced", but is not yet shipping, by definition must "contain preliminary or speculative information and may not reflect the final version of the product" - it's a given that a product may change between announce and prduction. Plus, the wording of {{Announced product}} is unclear - if it's saying that the article is only allowed to "contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only", then it's disallowing information about popular reaction to the product or media references to it, and there's no Wikipedia guideline against this. - Brian Kendig 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A week ago (before the MacWorld Expo), there would not have been a template on a page regarding the idea of an Apple-made cell phone called "future product;" and it certainly could not have been labeled as an "announced product" because it wasn't announced! A second way to look at this: How can you have any verifiable information on a product that isn't announced? —Scouter Sig 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Future product}}, or delete. What little distinction exists between the two is too affirmative. Either the sources are reliable and strong enough to stand on their own, and indicate that the product will almost certainly be released, or they're not, regardless of what the template says. No other template on Wikipedia gives an article a stamp of approval, and I don't see a reason to start. (and a nitpick: the current text says only that the article is officially released, which isn't sufficient to pass WP:NOT a crystal ball... Barabus TKR was officially announced, but its manufacturer was unknown before the announcement, so the announcement wasn't enough to say that the future release was almost certain to take place... NOT a crystal ball is more complex than that, and the assessment can change over time (eg. the TKR's ship date passed, and the company hadn't released any press reports for several months)) --Interiot 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other reasons above. This template, where it is not redundant to {{future product}} (or having no template at all), is nonsensical. schi ^talk 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary, Future Product covers it. Wikipedia says "content must be verifiable" so this is just duplication. And I don't appreciate being told that only official information is allowed. Deletionism IS evil though. --John Lunney 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even apple itself doesn't maintain this degree of certainty in its announcements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And Jobs has stated that the current state of the iPhone is not final. AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per schi. It's redundant, mostly, and it's absurd where it isn't. What possible reliable sources other than the company itself can exist for an unreleased product? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. As others have already said, this template has no meaningful distinction from the established future product template. Any product that hasn't been announced is by definition speculation, and thus doesn't belong here per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thus, this template serves no purpose, and seems to have been created solely to treat the iPhone differently from every other not-yet-released product. Redxiv 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Duplicates the function of {{future product}} with no appreciable benefit or distinction. No valid argument has been made that distinguishes this from the future product template. This doesn't have a snowball's chance of standing up to scrutiny. -- Kesh 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -Doc^g 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal-ball distinction between two crystal-ball templates. Alai 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{db-spam}}. —An gr 20:48, 15 January 2007 (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:Neo and Paleo Ideologies

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcruft. This listbox has no sensible unifying theme. The linguistic theme might have made sense had there been two boxes, one for neo- and one for paleo-, but combining the two makes this template a waste of screen space. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Hmm, it does seem like template creep to me. I'm not really too familiar with the subject matter (heh, I saw "Paleo" and I thought it had to do with palentology!), and after looking through most of the articles, which have some excellent navigational templates leading off the article, this seems superfluous. I'm interested in hearing a good counter-argument though. -/- Warren 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is listing neo- and paleo- ideologies, that would include, um, all of them potentially. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could someone please explain/link "template creep?" I have not seen that phrase before today. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I use the term "template creep" as a variation of scope creep... it's the idea that we have too many templates that do similar things. I'm not a deletionist per se but I do think too many choices for templates can be overwheming for newer editors. -/- Warren 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the only unifying feature is a prefix used in the name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pointless. —Per Hedetun (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles in the template have nothing to do with one another. At best it is irrelevent, but it is also likely to be misleading. — coelacan talk — 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I particularly agree with Coelacan. By listing together various ideologies that have nothing in common except a prefix in their name, this template can be highly misleading. -- Nikodemos 21:38, 18 January 2007 (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:Firsts in India

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this template was/is. It isn't used anywhere, has no incoming links, and is edited sporadically. Creator hasn't edited since he created it. Overall, it doesn't really seem to have a use. Picaroon 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dgies is interested in userfying, so the closing admin should probably move it to his userspace and delete the redirect. Picaroon 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the above. —Tox 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might make for a decent list article though... -/- Warren 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ibid. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, very informative though, just not a template. Arjun 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to me. I will adopt it and convert it to a list article. —Dgies^t c 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think you'll be able to find references for all this info? If you're interested in moving it to your userspace, turning it into a real article, and moving it into article space as a list, then I fully support your plan. Picaroon 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just planning on letting the links to articles stand as their own reference, and killing the ones that would be redlinks. Does that sound like a bad idea? —Dgies^t c 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above If someone knows enough about it to change it into something better, we should keep it.--C J King 04:46, 13 January 2007 (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.