Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 27

< March 26	March 28 >

March 27

Template:Vandarticle

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? I mean why wouldn't you just revert the vandalism? Creator of template is just a vandal but WP:AIV rejected the report [1] — Nardman1 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if people don't know how to revert vandalism, how would they know about the existence of this template, and how to call it? Gracenotes ^T § 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real96 23:17, 27 March 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 section.

Template:Freaks and Geeks episode

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of {{Infobox Television episode}} this template was edited to use this more general infobox, and subst: on the couple of pages that used it. No longer in use now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because its not in use, does appear to be a spoof on the television episode.Telly addict 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in order to facilitate taking over the world, one subsumed infobox at a time. Gracenotes ^T § 18:58, 27 March 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 section.

Template:WikiFur

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. Vassyana 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aiight, this template advertises that material is incorporated into the article from WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia. Funny thing is though, material shouldn't be sourced from Wikifur as it is considered an unreliable source. Hence, this template has no value or point — K@ngi e ^meep! 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TFDs: 1st, 2nd Koweja 03:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you're missing the point of this kind of template. It is indeed not appropriate to use WikiFur - or Wikipedia - as a reference, but that's not what this is for. The template is there to comply with the GFDL, which requires that new versions of a document contain credit to the creators and the full history of the document (whether a link provides this is debatable, but it's considered sufficient by some). It's perfectly fine to copy article material from one unreliable source (WikiFur) to another unreliable source (Wikipedia), but either could contain errors in fact or in referencing and should be checked before use. GreenReaper 07:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if it is altered to look like other attribution templates (no box, just italic text at the bottom of a page), and like them, used on the article page, not the talk page. Gracenotes ^T § 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with us doing that - the box on talk page is a hangover from the method that was used at the time for other sites. GreenReaper 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GreenReaper and Gracenotes are correct. Charon X/talk 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a necessary part of complying with the GFDL. Koweja 03:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced from Wikifur is not the same thing as copied from Wikifur. This is for the latter. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May sound harsh, but copying from WikiFur should not be encouraged in any manner. They have some very "internet-drama" articles and are completely non-compliant with things like BLP, take a look at wikifur:Sibe, a Wikifur featured article, full of nothing but random posting of a person's bad acts and legal troubles. Obviously this is an extreme case (or so I hope), but it's also worth noting that this isn't something written by an anonymous WikiFur editor that passed under the ropes, it was written by WikiFur's founder, so even if other biographies and articles regarding furry authors etc. aren't necessarily bad, it's safe to assume similar carelessness on the part of other subjects. Text from a source with this sort of treatment of living persons should never be copied on WP articles, especially about subcultures and fandom items, since those involve purely living persons and their works. If they are kept, plz make it like the other attribution templates. Milto LOL pia 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Carelessness"? I think you are confusing a lack of accuracy with differences in Wikipedia and WikiFur's policies on choice of topic and selection of depth of coverage. The article about Sibe - which, as you note, is exceptional - was featured on WikiFur because at the time it was probably one of our best articles in terms of quantity and quality of referencing, and served as an example of such to other editors. That does not necessarily mean it is one of our nicest, or the one that is the most enjoyable to read . . . it just means that it acts as an example in that particular area. I invite you to examine the references for yourself, but it should be quite accurate, as it was the constant charges of inaccuracy from the subject (with the objective of removing accurate but unflattering information) that required such comprehensive references in the first place. While Sibe is relatively well-known within furry fandom, he is a non-notable person outside of it, and so is unlikely to ever be a transwiki candidate, like most - but not all - of our articles. As for being written by me . . . I certainly started it, but as the founder I started quite a few articles - it's called seed posting. :-) The article has had over thirty editors since then. GreenReaper 06:49, 29 March 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 section.

Template:SportsIllustratedCover

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently fair-use about the covers of issues of Sports Illustrated. --Carnildo 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a violation of fair use policy. All magazine covers need to illustrate the issue in question, not just illustrate an athlete. This has been abused before. Grand master ka 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: this implies that magazine covers are okay to illustrate a person, which they are, in general, not. -Amarkov moo! 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing the magazine cover template can't handle. Also badly worded ... what's "the sportsman of the issue of the magazine in question"? Daniel Case 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not that my input is necessary; you folks have got it down. --Iamunknown 05:15, 29 March 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 section.