Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2

[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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HSX title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 (talkcontrib) - 23:56, 2 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.
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]

Template:VC1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.. slakrtalk / 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]

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 (UTC)
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.
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]

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

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]

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.
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]

Template:Greatest ever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

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.
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]

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

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]

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.
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]

Template:Infobox Village of Guam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. The 20 or so articles using it will behave 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]

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.
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]

Template:Gold software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.
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]

Template:Navbox Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is decrapated if favor of {{Navbox}}. All articles using this template have been migrated to the latter. EdokterTalk 14:56, 2 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.
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]

Template:Planned or proposed bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
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.
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]

Template:Bloodsports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
  • 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]
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.
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]

Template:SoCalFwy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
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.
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]

Template:Seealsosection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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. --lincalinca 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. --lincalinca 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. — H2O —  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]
  • 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.
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]

Template:POV-name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

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.