Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2

Template:HSX title

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(Говорить!) 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template to the Hollywood Stock Exchange was mass-implemented by Hsxmac. This external link provides zero content about any film and is instead a profile as part of a simulated stock exchange. Considering the user handle of the person who created and implemented the template at various films, this is linkspam. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As unused; external link to non-encyclopedic /source /reference site. SkierRMH 18:04, 3 November 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:VC1

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(Говорить!) 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks like vandalism itself (WP:CSD#G3), but it could be someone's attempt at humor. I figure I'd put it here.. slakr^\ talk / 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Actually, it's supposed to be funny ( in a dark sort of a way) However, if the consensus is that it's offensive and dosen't belong here, I will gladly yield to the consensus and let it be. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice, any usage of this template could be a blockable offence, as it blatantly violates WP:BITE, WP:CIV, etc, etc. MaxSem 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (albeit I did get a laugh out of it) per MaxSem as violation of BITE & CIV. SkierRMH 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Infact, it's meant to be used (humorously) on repeat offenders, those people who have recieved four vandal warnings and have been blocked before. (They would know the policy and therefore would not be newbies:) ) (Just an FYI - not a plea to keep it. Again, if the consensus is that it be deleted, then let it be deleted and salted. Thanks KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BITE. No one who got this on their page would find it funny. meshach 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt that this will serve its intended purpose correctly; violating several policies in a warning message may be funny, but incorrectly implies that that sort of wanton policy violation is OK when experienced editors do it, and so is more likely to encourage vandalism than prevent it. The documentation is amusingly out of context too (presumably it was just copied from {{uw-v1}}?) --ais523 09:33, 8 November 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox School II

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(Говорить!) 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deprecated due to its redundancy with multiple infoboxes, particularly with Infobox School. All articles using this template have been migrated. — « FMF » 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer needed. Loopla 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & redundancy. SkierRMH 18:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --Myles Long 16:06, 7 November 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:Greatest ever

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(Говорить!) 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template designed to create links between seemingly disconnected topics. Now only features one page, as the other has been deleted. — Bob talk 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It makes no sense as it is. Steve Dufour 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an attempt to link film pages to the "Greatest ever" article(?) that wasn't followed thru; use on the one page doesn't make any sense. SkierRMH 17:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Films are about the only thing that have enough critical commentary to create a sourced "greatest ever" list, most of the other greatest ever pages are gone, or have different inclusion standards (i.e. List of best-selling video games). This template has been depreciated. There certainly isn't a need for a nav template with one page. --Phirazo 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template that looks like somebody took a first step but never continued walking it through development.

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:Infobox MunicipalityPR

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(Говорить!) 03:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to match the infoboxes on rest of the island and the United States. The talk page is empty and should be deleted too. — MJCdetroit 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & redundant (and couldn't get it to display right, screwy left margin problem, with my browser). SkierRMH 17:57, 3 November 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:Infobox Village of Guam

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(Говорить!) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 20 or so articles using it ~~will be~~have been standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}} for consistency with other settlement articles of the United States. The talk page is empty and should be deleted too.— MJCdetroit 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & redundant to Infobox Settlement. SkierRMH 17:55, 3 November 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:Gold software

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(Говорить!) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is really necessary to have this level of detail in a future template. Template:Future software should be good enough. Also unused. --- RockMFR 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete near-duplication of Future software, w/ Gold added. Quickly looked through uses of Future software articles & didn't see that this level of detail warranted. SkierRMH 17:53, 3 November 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:Navbox Television

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(Говорить!) 03:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is decrapated if favor of {{Navbox}}. All articles using this template have been migrated to the latter. — Edokter • Talk • 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —MJCdetroit 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —TigerK 69 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated & redundant per nom. SkierRMH 17:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, say yes to template consolidation. Chris Cunningham 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It surprises me that this is still around, actually. --linca linca 10:00, 8 November 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:Planned or proposed bridges

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(Говорить!) 03:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Template:Bridge under construction and Template:Future bridge (well, a dupe of their original versions). All created by the same user, so there are no GFDL concerns. --- RockMFR 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wouldn't any of the articles to which it links be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL? Bobby1011 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —MJCdetroit 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication & deprecated. Not necessarily CRYSTAL, as some planned or proposed bridges become very noteworthy during this stage (thinking of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge rebuild controversy. SkierRMH 17:47, 3 November 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:Bloodsports

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 Alex Bakharev 00:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This template was previously nominated for deletion on January 16, 2006, with the outcome Keep

The premise of the template is subjective. It attempts to label certain sports as "blood sports" whilst no obvious universal definition of the term is applicable to all of those activities listed. Its encyclopaedic use is at best questionable considering that the term is often used in a perjorative sense. In many articles to which the template was added the only point at which the term was used was in the template itself. The article on Hare coursing outlines the controversy surroundings it being labeled a blood sport. This template has previously been considered for deletion. The result was to keep. The reasons given to keep the article are better serviced by the category of the same name which already exists. — Bobby1011 05:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is nonsense Blood sport is well defined in Wikipedia, with it's own article. Chessy999 10:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wikipedia article defines a blood sport as "a term commonly used by social reformers to describe sport or entertainment which is believed to be cruel, involving needless animal or human suffering.". The key word here is believed. A template which give the names of several sports and lables them blood sports is assuming a set of beliefs by doing so, and is therefore violating WP:NPOV. Bobby1011 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, at least one of the articles linked to by the template does not include the template. This is probably because the article is not concerned with a sport at all. Bobby1011 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If, as you suggest, Siamese fighting fish is not a sport, delete the reference to it. I added the ^{[citation needed]} tag to the claim in that article that it is a sport ([1]), and I plan to delete the reference if no one adds evidence. MikeHobday 08:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Siamese fighting fish is not a sport but, when humans put them together in a bowl to fight one another it is a bloodsport. There is no separate article for the bloodsport aspect, so it goes to the main article with it's subsection within it. Chessy999 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous discusion at [2]. MikeHobday 08:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that there is a policy that templates, categories, etc. should not be controversial. This one clearly is. Steve Dufour 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from any apparent POV problem with this template, I maintain that there is nothing added by it that is not already dealt with, at least as effectively, by the Category:Blood sports. In the spirit of Why tags are evil, this template merits being expunged and with all due dispatch. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow another "xfD" place. I came here from the Spider fighting article. Anyways, I believe that the template is redundant with the list in the main Bloodsport article and the category. Also, someone always seem to delete the spider's article's entry in the template claiming that it is already covered in Insect fighting (spiders are arachnids)--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an important navigational template that allows editors and inexperienced users to find relevant information quickly, that they might not be aware exists. Chessy999 10:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The navigational benifit of the template is better provided for by the category for bloodsports that already exists. Inclusion within the category shows that the article is associated with bloodsports in some way(through controversy surrounding a sports practice, or a prominent opponent of bloodsports for example), but inclusion within the template labels certain sports as bloodsports, a label that is in many cases controversial. Bobby1011 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The template appeares to no longer be functional after an edit by chessy999~~. Bobby1011 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems functional enough to me but it is in the collapsed state by default. In fact, if this TfD were to end up on "keep", I should surely prefer this incarnation of the template. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see how it works now. Bobby1011 10:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let us not forget that there is already a Bloodsports article as well as a Category:Bloodsports. Surely there is no editor or user clueless enough to need this template in addition to the article and category? If that were the case, where would it end? Instead of having solely a Category:Fauna of the United States, shall we have a Template:Fauna of the United States, as well, to label each of the articles? Along with the Category:All articles with unsourced statements shall we have a Template:All articles with unsourced statements as well? So insufficient is the Category:World War II such that we need to implement a Template:World War II (okay, never mind that one... :-))? It seems incomprehensible to me that we need all three — an article, a category and a template — to allow users to navigate through the apparent incomprehensibility of what is a bloodsport. If that is, indeed, the case, perhaps there is something wrong with the concept itself that makes it irredeemable in the larger sense? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the category and list on main article seem more than useful enough. —Scouter Sig 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NPOV. Mikieminnow 12:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NPOV.David A. Flory 07:36, 10 November 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:SoCalFwy

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(Говорить!) 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated, not used, and replaced by Template:Infobox road. — Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be sent to Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re above otherwise. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and the links aren't even confined to Southern California, anyway. —Scouter Sig 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with Template:Infobox road. —Scott5114 ↗ 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. O₂ (息 • 吹) 23:55, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
Delete from the department of redundancy department master son^{T - C} 00:17, 12 November 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:Seealsosection

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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SELF. no entry. repetition of Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects templates.— StorongStorm 01:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as creator. The template here is designed to subtitute the sister project templates when there is a need for multiples of these to be listed, otherwise it looks terrible having several of the boxes. Sometimes it is suitable to use the boxes, but when several are used, it's cluttered. This is designed to be sleeker and appear as a list, much like would already appear in the External links or See also sections. With regards to this being a self reference, it doesn't refer within Wikipedia itself except for the Portal link. The majority of the links given are the sister projects, which, as mentioned, this simply substitutes other links to these, not as an additional use, but as an alternative. --linca linca 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. There is a COI when the creator joins the deletion discussion, especially when his was the only comment. I think this template warrants deletion because 'Speers Point, New South Wales' may not appear on Wikisource or Wikibooks. It may appear on Wikimedia Commons, however, so only a Wikimedia Commons template must be used. We don't need something as generic as this - most articles only inter-wiki to one or two sister projects, if at all. Auroranorth (sign) 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creators are allowed to comment, COI doesn't apply here... his comment isn't the only one, it was the only one when you came across this debate. There are now more comments. Linca is allowed to comment, and he is allowed to give points on why the template shouldn't be deleted. ~ Sebi 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I think you're misunderstanding how this template can be used. You only select the articles you wish to link to and only ass appropriate. If there isn't, say, a WikiSpecies article that applies (and for things like a town, or a person, a band, a car etc etc, there obviously isn't except in exceptional circumstances) then it's unnecessary. I've actually used this on my own page to link to my alt in Commons, since it works to use it like that too. It allows up to four links to news articles on wikinews, it allows to add to a portal, but the most important thing I can express right now is that you could (if you must) use it for just one link. It's just to keep it all together, tidy and uncluttered without a half a dozen boxes. As to your example of Speers Point, right now it's not in use there and there's nowhere it would be used, so I don't see why that article bears any relevance. If there was a WikiNews article about an event that occurred in SP, then you could link to it using this by establishing a see also section, a news section or in some other place. If you want, I can make a <pp>boxed=yes</pp> function, so that you can place it in a box, like the existing ones, so that it can full supercede them. --linca linca 12:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{Sisterlinks}} has been in use for some time.--Esprit15d 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I dunno, if you want coninuity then the template should be deleted. However, I think the template looks cool, and should even take over the Sister link boxes as it looks smarter, cleaner and takes up less room. I'm at a loss. Spawn Man 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have sisterlinks, which should be placed at the bottom of the article alongside other external links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst I agree that in some cases {{sisterlinks}} would be a better choice, there are many cases when it wouldn't be. Not all Wikimedia projects will cover every topic - with {{seealsosection}} you can only show the links that are actually relevant (ie. they exist). Sisterlinks also doesn't contain a portal link facility, or a commons category (as opposed to commons gallery page) facility. Therefore, I think seealsosection should be kept for providing a different, and sometimes more useful, functionality. — H ₂O — 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like how the template allows you to only choose sisterlinks that exist. My only issue with the template is that it adds a "see also" section to music articles, which is discouraged in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#See_also. Sisterlinks should go to the external links instead of a "see also" section. Spellcast 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template doesn't physically add a ==See also== - and can thus be incorporated into the external links section. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh, I was misled by the name. I saw it under a see also section in John Mayer and the template's title led me to believe it added the section. Spellcast 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is much more aesthetic - particularly for those with ridiculously sized screens on which it can be hard to spot the boxes. ;) In addition to this it helps keep clean the code, as only one template is used for multiple boxes, while keeping clutter off the page by only adding the required links Conrad.Irwin 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all for consistency, but having (better) alternatives brings about change. Rocket000 23:56, 11 November 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:POV-name

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(Говорить!) 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be replaced with Template:POV-title. They both serve the same purpose this one is hardly used and not well-supported with documentation.— BirgitteSB 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now deprecated; redundant to Template:POV-title. SkierRMH 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated, redundant template. Doczilla 05:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, deprecated template that's redundant. Rocket000 23:58, 11 November 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.