Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 1

< July 31	August 2 >

August 1

Template:Sport in the Catalan-speaking world

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Unencyclopedical, unrelated topics (language/sport) apparently masquerading a nationalistic bias (given so-called "national" status to the so-called "Catalan-speaking world (sic)" for a fact.[reply]

Please read a bit more elaborated reasoning at the template talk page. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete - Directly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 5. Violates WP:NPOV; use of the Catalan flag on a template including links to the Andorran national football team demonstrates the political agenda being pushed by this template. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, specifically statements on the template talk page. --Friejose (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poiuytre (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (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:Gbmalls

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gbmalls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a useful template. Only two of these malls are blue linked, and the rest are far too small or obscure to ever be anything more than red links (most of them are just strip malls, and it's my experience that strip malls are barely ever notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not useful now, and never likely to become a useful template. Terraxos (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2008 (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:GB B road zone 1

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GB B road zone 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A massive redlink farm for topics that mostly don't merit separate articles. At the time of writing, there are well over 100 links to the individual members, of which 11 are currently blue. Of those, one has its own article (and probably shouldn't). There are two redirects to other articles, and the remaining eight redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, which is also linked in the foot of the template. A template to link one article to not very much else is clearly unnecessary. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) -Arb. (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) -Arb. (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete Insufficient GB B-roads are likely to pass WP:N to make this a viable template --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'd usually vote to strongly keep such articles, but seeing that most road articles linked to are just redirects to a mother article, I'd say my vote is self-explanatory. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well-intentioned, but a bit excessive for a navigational template - we don't have articles on all these roads, and for most of them, we're never likely to. Terraxos (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2008 (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:Mafia series

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mafia series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are only two games that exist for this series and hence only two existent items for this template. A template is clearly not needed for just two articles. — MuZemike (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is four articles actually and iam going too add few of them. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the best template in the world, but the articles it links to are apparently notable and are related to this topic. --Friejose (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a template about a series of games, not about a single game. There are already enough links not to judge this as a sort of a vanity template. This game franchise is not as big as Sonic's, but it's definitely well-known and articles linked to are notable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. (I know, I know.) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uhm, I don't know about you but I count 7 articles. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:12, 8 August 2008 (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:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Transactions and Template:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Off-Season Transactions

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Transactions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Off-Season Transactions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty much defines indiscriminate information. No use outside of a single article. Just no reason for a template such as this. Honestly, this is the kind of content that shouldn't be in articles anyway, much less a template. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete violates WP:NOT#NEWS; Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~and incorporate useful information into the articles of the subjects.~~ This is pretty much a definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In fact, most of the list subjects don't even have articles, so just delete. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — even if the content was appropriate for the main Saskatchewan Roughriders article, it should not be transcluded from a single-use template to hold the table. That's not what the template namespace is for. Copy the table into the main article and delete the templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reason I moved them to templates was that the 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season page was becoming over the kb limit. I can copy them back into the page if need be, just trying to keep the page under the kb limit. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2008 (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:Psychostick

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Psychostick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly narrow template. The album and EP are interlinked, and the demos are not going to survive afd (demos are almost inherently non-notable). The only two other bluelinks aren't directly related, so this template isn't really a useful navigation hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per TPH's rationale. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — agree with TenPoundHammer's assessment. Not every article needs a navbox... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (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:Islands of the British Isles

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (for now). Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islands of the British Isles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was created to disrupt a pending task force called 'British Isles Terminology task force' (a hard-won taskforce to deal with this type of thing - it is simply awaiting a neutral to open it here). At least one article is currently locked over the usage of the term "British Isles" (which includes Ireland). 6 people now have complained about this template and more are likely too. This template is being used like a sandbox, but the creator is reverting it's removal and claiming it is his own work, and nothing to do with the task force or anyone else - though he was part of the taskforce's creation. I'm sure it goes against a long list of WP policy (not least WP:OWN). Please note - I am personally not against the term 'British Isles' myself, but this template was inserted to prejudice a fair discussion, from someone with a history of disruption.— Matt Lewis (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was not created to cause disruption, and to claim such is an egregious lapse of AFG. In fact, a list such as this would be extremely useful, and of great benefit to the project. Any desire for deletion can only come from a political agenda, or to appease those who have one. Wikipedia is not censored and if facts are deleted on the dictates of tiny but vocal minorities then we will end up with a worthless farrago of waffle, devoid of any use or respect. ðarkun coll 08:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If used the Template will just create more conflict, edit wars etc. The task force needs to proceed and be set up by a neutral player --Snowded TALK 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this template will be very useful one day (though it's important it's not used in places where it may not be wanted). But it's creation (and re-creation) in MainSpace is disruptive, particularly so at this critical time when a facilitator is being sought. Judging by the discussion, bringing this to TfD is barely necessary, the creator is at 3RR un-blanking it already, and could be overwhelmed by just a single editor seeking to scotch the arguing and time-wasting. PR^talk 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made redundant by the vast numbers of islands. The current situation is better, since it at least breaks them down into smaller archipelagoes. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future depending on the upcoming Task Force. Otherwise it appears to preempt future recommendations by the Task Force and is unnecessarily controversial. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template has been produced apparently without thought as to its use or effective size if it was ever populated to include even a small fraction of the islands it should include. MacRusgail points to the existing better solution. It is possible that a recreation at some future time after due discussion and thought might prove useful over and above the present solutions, but because this template was created probably due to reasons hinted at by HighKing, PR, Snowded and Matt Lewis, it is better deleted. DDStretch (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,as this Template has become a lightning rod. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my opinon. I don't find this Template's name offensive & wouldn't have a problem with it being re-introduced (if/when people agree to it). I only wished it deleted (for now), as it was causing editors to dispute over it & I feared blocking might occur. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a lot of effort is being put into trying to reach an accommodation between conflicting and strongly held views; this merely seeks to inflame matters so far as I can see. I apologise Thark for my egregious lapse of AFG. Sarah777 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created for essentially political purposes and has very little navigational value. Ben Mac Dui 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It doesn't matter why it was created. The fact is it is useful. I have already used it. "Created for essentially political purposes", and that's the reason given for deletion as well; "delete this template for political reasons. Never mind that it's useful to readers" is what I infer from the above comments. CarterBar (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whatever for??? If we have List of islands in the British Isles, why should this be a problem. If this is deleted I want a copy for my personal use...it is very useful. --Cameron * 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Tharkuncoll kept it in a sandbox, and pulled it out it just when he saw the task force clearly had enough support to start. I'm sure he'll let you play with it there. I am pro the use of BI but am not sure about this one.. maybe.. it needs debate first certainly, otherwise it will just be the target of edit wars, and will hinder progess. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but that is completely untrue. I only put it in a sandbox after you proposed to delete it. ðarkun coll 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I wasn't sure if my original response at the top counts as a vote, so I'll make it explicit here. As soon as Wikipedia allows a tiny, vocal minority with a political agenda to determine which facts can be mentioned, and which can't, it is as good as finished. ðarkun coll 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that, as far as I can see, there are already templates that cover many of the islands that this template will cover, and there doesn't appear to have been any research into what templates already exist and what holes there are which need plugging. Furthermore, the number of islands that can be included given its current description will make this template unwieldy to say the least (more than 790 in Scotland alone, according to List of islands of Scotland.) I am not against a future re-creation of such a template, but I think it needs far more careful researcj and consideration as to its design and inclusion criteria, above and beyond that which appears to have been done so far under circumstances of heightened and intensified controversy of the entire area. For example,

(a) at the moment, it lists the islands as one undifferentiated group, sorted by size. This may make it very difficult to locate particular islands, and so some structuring of the actual list may be a better way of organise it.

(b) The sorting by size is perhaps all right and may well be an innovation, as I have not seen this feature in other similar templates I have randomly dipped into. However, others may think sorting it by general place within the British Isles may be better (even by country, in fact.) Indeed, this could be the reason why I have not seen it elsewhere, as other authors of similar templates, if they have engaged in careful critical discussions about design, may have concluded it is potentially too confusing to organise it by size.

(c) If it is potentially too large a list to feasibly have (getting on for 1000 potential entries, as I implied above), then there may well have to be a decision about a feasible cut-off on a relevant criterion, which will determine whether an island is included in the template or not. If the entries in the template are ordered by size, then the obvious criterion may be one based on size, though one could also restrict it tyo inhabited islands, which would also cut down on the list. Whichever kind of cut-off criterion is decided upon, it would seem much more sensible to discuss and decide upon it before this template "went live", as it appears tohave done now.

(d)These issues have nothing to do with any supposed political agenda, or any kind of suppoosed censorship (referring to the comment about "a tiny, vocal minority with a political agenda to determine which facts can be mentioned, and which can't"). It is solely about the speed with which such a possibly worthy template has been constructed with insufficient attention to important matters of design and coverage, because of the unfeasibly large number of entries it could have. It could be potentially useful, as I stated in my expressed opinion, above, but in its present form, I think it is very much lacking.

I hope these comments are taken to be a critical yet positive comment on this template, and the comments should, I hope, be taken as my view of how any template like this might be better designed, if the decision is to delete the current one, and if there is then a will to go away and come up with a better designed one. Alternatively, if the decision is taken to keep tis template, I hope these comments are seen to be positive suggestions of how it needs to be improved as quickly as possible. DDStretch (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see how the existence of a geographical navbox can itself be disruptive. Incidentally, which wikiproject is the task force a subgroup of? Surely something like this should be mentioned at WP:UKGEO at least? Waggers (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been put into articles yet, has it? It depends on the good faith you are willing to invest - but it wasn't started in a way that engenders that, was it? It was a clear play. I'm not sure it's needed anyway: some of us need debate on this. The task force (a subpage of GEOG) is starting tonight at 10pm (about 15mins) - we asked for a neutral to open it, but it doesn't look like anyone is coming forward. So as the person who started the poll going in BIT, I'll put it up at 10 as I said on my talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly for the reasons given by DDstretch. I'm not so concerned about the name of the template (which can be changed if necessary) than its basic aim - to include all the islands around Britain and Ireland in one template. As pointed out above, if fully carried out, that would lead to this template becoming unfeasibly large. If it were better organised, or had some clear inclusion criterion, it might be worth keeping, but as it is I can't see much use coming out of it. Terraxos (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless BIT later decides it would be a good idea. Until then, this is just going to get in the way, and be a distraction. It's taken so long to get this area resolved. They're finally making headway now, so lets allow them to do their job without such distraction. -- Mark Chovain 04:13, 7 August 2008 (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:Cherrypicked

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cherrypicked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a subset of NPOV issues, but it is far from clear that the "issue" highlighted by this template is a problem. The fact that arguments or quotes used in an article may have also been used by an advocacy group does not automatically preclude their usage in an article, and does nto mean they are invalid or questionable- that is an ad hominem fallacy. If the quotes and/or arguments do indeed violate NPOV - we can use the pre-existing NPOV template — Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge with NPOV. Templates are usually single-purpose so keep is probably better than merge. Adding a parameter to an existing NPOV template which displays the cherry-picking language is acceptable but it might be seen as too convoluted. I agree, this template should be used only when the cherrypicking contributes to the lack of neutrality. I disagree with the author's assertion that the issue is not a clear problem: While I haven't checked lately, I've seen the template used appropriately in the past. If the template were deleted, the next person who needs a similar template may re-create it from scratch without realizing this template was deleted. By the way, the template is in use by 9 articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YKeep I think this template serves a useful purpose; if an article or section draws from an apparently diverse set of sources, it may not be immediately clear there is a NPOV issue. Using another NPOV template won't make the issue clear. The template's language does not imply the sources are somehow bad or should not be used, but that other material presenting other important points of view is required; it places articles into Category:Articles needing more viewpoints and not Category:Accuracy disputes. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2008 (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.

reflist

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 section.

The result of the debate was cleaning up, not a discussion - Nabla (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Some one made a mess, with subpages, big bold warnings, transclusion, ... it is at:[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 1/reflist (closed)

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.