Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25

[edit]
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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rage of the Dragons characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A non-notable template for a non-notable video game. --Jonny2x4 21:32, 25 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.
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 redirect to Template:Simpsons character by Night Gyr and Crazytales

Template:Simpsons Character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Incomplete nonsense template created by someone with questionable contributions. Correct template exists as Template:Simpsons character--Natalie 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as nonsense. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And redirected. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 18:56, 27 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Single use re-direct of the the standard Infobox City template. MJCdetroit 18:13, 25 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.
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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPMILHIST Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer used, and obsolete now that the "current-collaboration" parameter has been added to {{WPMILHIST}}. --Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 25 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Concern that this essay may not reflect the opinions of many Wikipedians or may be unbalanced". So friggin' what? Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything. If you don't like an essay's tone, {{sofixit}}. Create your own essay, or go to dispute resolution. There really is no point in adding NPOV tags to pages that are supposed to represent opinions. >Radiant< 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a tone of civility might be nice? "So friggin' what?" What sort of language is this? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bowdlerized language, of course. >Radiant< 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, very uncivil. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to the template to add the TfD tag and found that Radiant! had beaten me to it. This template isn't particularly useful, as NPOV doesn't apply to essays (which express the point of view of one or more Wikipedians). Discussing changes on the talk page is a better thing to do than to use a tag. --ais523 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Other NPOV templates exist. Xiner (talk, email) 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all essays are going to fall under this category; if they had a consensus behind them, they would not be essays. And essays need not be balanced; in fact, ones which express an opinion can't be. -Amark moo! 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of interest, where does it state this on Wikipedia? I don't remember seeing any guidelines for essays. And how does this relate to what Xiner just wrote - he says we can apply other NPOV tags! One more thing: if essays can be POV, should we allow them? Some essays are written in an authoritative tone, however, I don't agree with what they say. Newbies and others may think it is policy. Does this mean I can change the essay to make it more balanced, or do I have to write a counter essay to give the opposing POV? If this is the case, like I said before, isn't this the place for the meta site? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it's an essay, it's not always clear to new users that it might be not represent the POV of the community. So, if someone writes an essay, and someone else finds it ridiculously POV, there will now be no way to come and clean it up without changing the actual text (and provoking a bitter edit warring with the creator). It's not really redundant with the NPOV template, because that refers to articles. Just look at m:Guerilla UK spelling campaign and m:Gorilla US spelling campaign for two great examples (the first article says it's supposed to be a joke, but I think it's actually just a jab). I'm sure some examples like that exist on our Wiki. 64.178.98.65 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps we can rephrase it, however, essays really should try to encompass as many points of view about Wikipedia as possible. Many essays are biased to the point of view about what one group of people want Wikipedia to be, and the essays are then quoted as gospel. I thought the whole point about Wikipedia was not to be divisive, and to write an encyclopedia that was neutral? (as an aside, why have essay's started cropping up? Aren't essays meant to be on meta?). Anyway, the point being, some essays are onesided. A good example is WP:ILIKEIT: this is one sided, yet it is meant to be showing how not to argue on xFD. However, it mentions one bad delete comment, and all the rest are keep comments! Clearly biased against those who want to delete articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essays aren't supposed to be NPOV; the whole point of them is to express a particular point of view. Consensus doesn't enter into the picture at all, unless someone wants to promote it to a guideline or policy.
    "Newbies and others may think it's policy"? That's what the banner stating "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline" is for. WarpstarRider 11:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per several of the arguments above. The essay template already clarifies that it's not a policy or guideline. On a side note, Radiant might want to read WP:CIVIL. DB (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I friggin' dislike friggin' unnecessary templates. At the top of each essay, it already friggin' says that it's not friggin' policy. This template would be so friggin' redundant, it makes my friggin' head spin. This should be deleted as Templatecruft (or, alternatively, Frigcruft.) .V. [Talk|Email] 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To quote the nominator, "Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything." That's because they don't need to be enacted or anything. They're not policy, don't reflect a consensus of many Wikipedians, etc., and the fact that it's not policy is explicitly clear in {{essay}}. If you want to edit {{essay}} to make it explicitly clear that it doesn't necessarily reflect consensus, that's fine by me, but calling an essay POV is... well... duh. -- NORTH talk 22:03, 29 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.
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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dexter episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was a duplicate of {{Infobox Television episode}}. It did not add anything over this "parent" template, I therefore replaced it on all it's pages as part of a drive to limit the amount of different episode boxes --TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 15:08, 25 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jihad multimedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is a mess and I am not sure it adds value. It currently contains a random collection of items: MEMRI is a pro-Israel Arabic media monitoring organization, Mosaic is just an highbrow documentary series that has done work on "Jihadi" groups but so have PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama, and SITE Institute is barely notable. The template is also poorly named. 70.48.241.47 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: then add these groups under "See also" or "External Links" at Memri.Bless sins 22:35, 27 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.
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 subst and delete RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MNRR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NJT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:SIRy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Here are some more:
Template:IRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BMT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:IND (NYCS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:LIRR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Moved to Template talk:NYCS/Old, so Template:NYCS service can be moved to Template:NYCS. Template talk:NYCS has been moved to Template talk:NYCS/Old talk. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Template:PATH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
--Tinlinkin 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in using these templates, when you can simply type out the link. They're also not being used. --NE2 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the last time, there was never consensus to delete these anyway. If no consensus is reached, I will have this nomination closed. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are these just meant to be short cuts for typing out the full name of a single link? These are not what templates are supposed to be for. --Polaron | Talk 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Because we are worried about straining the servers, we should keep the templates, but remember to sub them. We should add a note on templates like these to make sure they are subbed. And these templates are being used. However, they are subbed, not transcluded. That's why there arent as much links as before. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, using the wikisource gets tempting and annoying overtime. Substituting the templates, we don't have to worry about typing in the wikisource. Subbing the templates takes care of this for us. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like you're agreeing with me, which makes no sense. I want the things deleted. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I think you misunderstood me. I want them to stay, but that is up to NE2, or someone else qualified to close it, like an admin. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expressed opinion here, so I'm not really neutral enough to close this fairly. However, if I were looking at another discussion like this one, I'd say that there was a rough consensus for deletion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a fair number of templates used only with subst, but they tend to be more complex and dynamic than these (e.g. Template:Uw-vandalism4im). These nominated templates do nothing but insert piped links, which would only change if their target articles were renamed, and this is highly unlikely. Thus, their encyclopedic usefulness is very limited. As per WP:TFD: "…proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever… the template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". From my point of view, these templates are not very helpful or noteworthy. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These templates are not noteworthy or helpful in Wikipedia and now only serve to make for greater convenience for a few editors. As NE2 pointed out, many of the links that the templates produce can be typed out, and some will redirect correctly (e.g. instead of {{MNRR}}, use [[MNRR]], producing MNRR). And if eliminating redirects or disambiguation is desirable, that's easy to do. It's an editor's issue whether he or she types out links and uses piped links or not. And how many more articles would these things be used in? They were useful in the heyday of building NYCT articles; but as the articles are now beginning to mature, these templates of simple wikilinks will become less useful in subsequent uses anyway. Tinlinkin 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates should never be used to transclude mainline article content. -/- Warren 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst: all and delete. Another case of templates masquerading as content. Clearly folk aren't subst'ing, and a bot run does not change editor behaviour. For most of these cases, it's nothing a redirect can't fix. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. For some of these, they are actually very useful. But since only small group of editors are going to know about them, it doesn't make sense to keep them. —mako (talkcontribs) 03:29, 4 February 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.
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 keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airports in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{Airports in the United Kingdom}}, no reason for individual Scottish version since the CAA is UK-wide, thanks/wangi 00:57, 25 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:July 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Appears to be unused. As evidence, the template is broken as it uses the current calendar instead of the true one for July 2005. Also, there is no other template existing named "July 200x" for any other year --After Midnight 0001 00:02, 25 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.