Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

Succession boxes

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and redundant to the more generic {{S-start}} series. PC78 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per good nomination. Carlosguitar 13:26, 27 September 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:Galactic Emperor

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo!

Userbox is unused, while the image is non-existant and would almost certainly be a non-free copyvio anyway. PC78 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused userbox. Carlosguitar 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del Unused, unneeded. Dfrg.msc 00:49, 8 October 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:NRL

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo!

Unused.. Balloonguy 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obsolete per {{Brisbane Broncos}}. Carlosguitar 17:23, 27 September 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:Kang Youwei table

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo!

Single use template. Should be substituted and deleted. . Balloonguy 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree - no need for template for this. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:14, 3 October 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:Fb cm LUFC header

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 deleted by WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure Carlosguitar 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Balloonguy 21:43, 26 September 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:DEE

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo!

This template follows the intention and naming conventions established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, and documented on Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles for "shortcut" flag templates for modern day nations. For example {{FRA}} is a shortcut for the more generic {{flag|France}}. In this case, the template is used to render a flag icon for a historical nation, but "DEE" certainly doesn't conform to any of the standard country codes that are used for this series of templates (namely, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, list of IOC country codes, and list of FIFA country codes). Using a non-standard country code will certainly be cause for confusion, and sets the wrong precedent for additional similar templates to be created. There are about a thousand flag icon templates (see Category:Country data templates) and it would be awkward to invent shortcut abbreviations for all of them. I would assert that using {{flag|German Empire}} is preferable wikicode to {{DEE}} for clarity reasons. — Andrwsc 20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MC 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the use of DEE is perfectly fine for a quick shorthand substitute for the full text. moreover, there several other 'three letters' currently in use (e.g. {{SUI}} vs. {{CHE}}) that do no comply with any iso coding. --emerson7 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – DEE is an invented code whereas SUI is the IOC and FIFA code and CHE is the ISO code. Also {{SUI}} is a redirect to {{CHE}}. —MC 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is perfectly fine for the purpose for which it was intended. it was never meant to emulate or be confused with any official coding. --emerson7 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that standard country codes like "SUI" and "CHE" are fairly well known, so editors will rarely have difficulty using those shortcut flag templates. Inventing new abbreviations doesn't help anybody except the editor who invented them, and even then, results in wikicode that is unnecessarily confusing for any other editor that subsequently works on pages that use them. Andrwsc 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrwsc and per single-use template deletion precedents. This rarely-WP-used flag icon can easily be generated in the standard way, and does not need a shortcut, much less one that no one in the world but its inventor knows or understands. If there is a historic but internationally standardized 3-letter code for Germany during this era, which does not conflict with a current country code, then by all means move the template to that TLA rather than delete it, but I think the odds of that are very low. PS: Make that a fix and delete, i.e. replace any usage of this template with a properly formed call to the flagicon template for this flag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears it's meant to be used as a transcluded template, but it's not even used anywhere in that case. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonstandard abbreviation. (SEWilco 20:37, 4 October 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 Republika Srpska

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. DrKiernan 10:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, was a single-use at Republika Srpska before subst'ed, and I don't even see what was the intented purpose, as it's a fork of {{Infobox Country}} — perhaps because "Country" in the latter was too much of a POV problem? Anyway, it's completely unnecessary. Duja► 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom - delete. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carlosguitar 17:56, 27 September 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:Historical Russian Leadership

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This divisive template conflates the Tsars (starting from the 18th century, for some reason), two liberal leaders of the February Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin. Furthermore, it is subject to a slow-burning revert-war over whether Lenin, Stalin, etc. may be considered "Russian leaders" and whether the USSR had anything to do with the evolution of Russian statehood. Either split the Tsars and Soviet leaders into different templates (there was neither legal nor political continuity between the USSR and the Russian Empire), or delete it altogether. We have categories, lists, and succession boxes to illustrate the order of succession in the Kremlin. The template is one thing too many. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ghirlandajo, templates creates a lot of clutter and adds very little value Alex Bakharev 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make more specific templates as needed. Biruitorul 07:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Split~~ into a number of more specific ones.--Dojarca 23:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now may be deleted.--Dojarca 08:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the following templates:

This template already existed: {{RussianPMsOld}}

--Dojarca 08:22, 10 October 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:Dyoh

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This rude template ("Do your own homework") is used on the Reference Desk. It is primarily used to bite first time visitors to Wikipedia. You only need to look at discussions about how appalling it is on the Reference Desk talk page or its use on Reference Desks themselves ([1], [2], [3], [4], or this appalling little episode on the Village Pump ([5] and here) to see its use never fosters any kind of good feeling. It is incivil and unhelpful. This is precisely the sort of response that ought not to be templated (and if someone really is too lazy to type a whole sentence, and they can't bear to leave it for someone else to respond in a nicer way, we have a far nicer template, {{Homework}}). — Neil ム 08:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just merge the templates, having one redirect to the other? As it is, {{Homework}} is perhaps overly polite to the point of being standoffish. --Lambiam 11:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't see that the diffs and examples you provide necessarily justify deletion. The first two diffs are to non-templated responses; the second two are to two-year-old templated responses from a now-banned user. As to the use of the template on Village Pump, while that was an incorrect and inappropriate use of the template, it does not follow that a correct use of the template - on the Reference Desk, in response to an obvious homework question - would be equally inappropriate. If I were to slap a Blatant Vandal template on someone's Talk page in response to an innocuous edit, would that be justification for deleting the template? I don't think so - the biting would be laid, correctly, at my feet and not blamed on the template that I chose to bite with. While the language could be softened a bit, I don't see the template itself - as opposed to the potential incorrect use of it - as inherently BITEy. - Eron ^Talk 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. As an inclusionist, I cringe to suggest anything be deleted, but this template bites newbies, even when used properly, while the much more polite {{Homework}} template does not. Therefore, this template should be deleted, and everyone should use the {{Homework}} template, instead. StuRat 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit as needed for wording. Any tool can be misued- don't blame the tool. Friday (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - a polite reply in english is better - were here to help not tell people off. 87.102.32.155 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eron. Perhaps edit to soften a little. But the concept is not inherently bad. --teb728 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has been softened since the nomination. I support the current wording. --teb728 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version by Lambian. - hydnjo talk 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I would prefer to see the template deleted altogether, so people not prepared to write a response to a question cannot simply slap a template on it, the new wording is far better. Neil ム 11:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because bitey and unnecessary. An appropriate RD response is "We cannot do your homework for you, but you might like to read our article on blah". How much effort does that take ? Using templates on the RDs is both rude and lazy. If you can't bothered to write out a polite response then don't respond at all. Gandalf61 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why do we have two separate templates that say essentially the same thing? Just merge them and use whatever text is between being too rude and overly polite. Is it supposed to be {{Homework}} for if it looks like it's probably homework, but {{dyoh}} when it definitely is?
- The wording of the templates implies that {{homework}} is used on the talk page of the user, and {{dyoh}} is a response to the question on the actual reference desk. --Ybbor ^Talk 02:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to try and arrange a photo today of a goat eating homework (I have 5 goats, so I assume one of them will oblige). Along with the caption "did the goat eat your homework?" this might make the template a bit friendlier and gentle... seem like a good modification? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really bad idea. Treating new and inexperienced contributors to a big dose of sarcasm will not encourage them to come back and help us build an encyclopaedia. Gandalf61 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hadn't meant it that way, but I suppose it would probably look more sarcastic than cute to many people. The goats weren't interested in eating the paper anyway (busy munching greener things I guess). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! It's of historical interest. If someone uses it, block them. There should be no official policy on homework, just advice. A.Z. 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What?! XD What could you possibly mean by historical interest? --⁪froth^t 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, no sense in having two templates for the same purpose. The "historical interest" can be seen under the "history" button. >Radiant< 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rewording by Lambian. Much improved, and not bite-y anymore. I think that removes the need for deletion. As far as {dyoh} vs. {homework}: I think one is for talk pages and one for ref/help desk responses. I don't see a need to merge. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason to make this into a template- polite, personalized responses can be offensive enough if they're made in error, and a handy template only encourages accusations because it becomes a standard response to a suspected question --⁪froth^t 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I've never used it prefering to write out my own responses and I'm not sure I ever will, it seems harmless. Yes it can be misused but so can everything. Reword if necessary but don't delete Nil Einne 00:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been modified several times since the deletion tag, and I think it looks much more acceptible and friendly now. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see StuRat, Gandalf61, froth for my rationale) ... even after all the modifications, it still is superfluous and more trouble than it's worth.dr.ef.tymac 06:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template has changed since original nomination. Dfrg.msc 00:44, 8 October 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:Thoughtcrime Template:Insufficient propaganda

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 deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes which are redundant, unhelpful, non-noteworthy templatecruft. — DrKiernan 07:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both per nom. Trolling. --Irpen 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - trolling, WP:POINT Alex Bakharev 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were created on September 6th and were still hanging around? Oh, seriously... speedied per all existing template deletion criteria. Digwuren, kindly stop making pointless work for editors and admins. You're heading for an indef block fast. Bishonen | talk 07:47, 26 September 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:I dislike this

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 deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this template is anything but WP:TROLLing in its purest form I don't know what the trolling is. As well as how its creator used it —-Irpen 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, trolling Alex Bakharev 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and urge Irpen to list the incident on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great minds think alike :). Done already. --Irpen 07:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously unusable. DrKiernan 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This experimental template has been developed in response to an interesting argument in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Tag misuse is disruptive. Deletion of this article would amount to wholesale rejection of Dojarca's argument, and this should not be done without actually presenting counterarguments in the discussion thread. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, don't list such obvious speedies here, please. This one violates both the existing template speedy criteria: 1) it's divisive and inflammatory, 2) it's a blatant misrepresentation of established policy. Deleted. Bishonen | talk 07:33, 26 September 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.