Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11

Template:Infobox Terrorist

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 - unused template and the sole author consents (POV concerns were not considered, these are too broad to be addressed in an XfD of an unused template).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Terrorist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - title violates WP:NPOV per WP:TERRORIST. Unlinked except on deletion discussion for Infobox Freedom fighter Rogerb67 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. The template is currently not in use – it has been briefly in use for Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh – and I would have expected there to be a CSD for unused templates, but apparently there isn't. --Lambiam 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. I am not opposed to deletion, as the template is not in use, but I cannot agree with the rationale. We also have a Category:Terrorists, with 6 subcategories and 60 subsubcategories. That category is useful, and the criterion given for inclusion is clear. --Lambiam 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3. There is a current deletion discussion for Template:Infobox Freedom fighter, in which some participants advocate renaming to Template:Infobox Terrorist. That template is, incidentally, also not in use, so in a sense the discussion is ado about nothing. --Lambiam 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no intrinsic difficulties to the application of this infobox; the difficulties are all extrinsic. (The guideline at WP:TERRORIST is simply muddle-headed — confusing unhinged political correctness with neutrality — and it is to be hoped that Wikipedia will eventually mature to the point that that guideline will be kicked not simply to the curb but into the gutter where it belongs.) —SlamDiego_←T 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ~~This was only created in response to the listing of Template:Infobox Freedom fighter for deletion.~~ I have the same arguments there: the name is POV, and the whole template is redundant to various biography infoboxen. Template:Infobox Person should be sufficient for all pertinent information about a person, while other information about any "insurgent/terrorist/whatever the PC term is" activity should remain in the body of the article; thus also avoiding a POV issue about whether a person should or shouldn't be called a terrorist or some other term. bahamut0013 ♠♣
- Reply: By “this”, I assume that you mean the listing here. (Template:Infobox Terrorist was creäted on 20 June; you listed Template:Infobox Freedom fighter on 5 August.) In which case, please read WP:WAX; the same principle should hold for templates. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, misconception on my part; for some reason I seemed to thing that the author of the deleted template created this one as a method of avoiding the deletion. However, the rest of the logic holds true. I'd also like to note that WP:WAX discourages the argument that the existance or deletion of another aticle is cause for the keep or deletion of a related one, which is not the argument I made. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The name isn't intrinsically POV, unlike “freedom fighter” (which turns on the definition of “freedom”), with which you are making some sort of analogy, WP:WAXy or otherwise. A terrorist is one who, for purposes of demoralization, deliberately strikes out at persons who are not themselves engaged in effecting hostilities. I'll readily grant that all sorts of POV-pushers who'll use “terrorist” otherwise, and resist its application to terrorists of whom they approve; I'll also grant that there are some cases where it genuinely isn't clear whether an action was terrorism. But if Wikipedia threw-away every word that gets misused, then there'd be nothing with which left to write; likewise for terms where the application were sometimes doubtful. —SlamDiego_←T 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but I had considered this in the last discussion. I feel that it's better to avoid the terrorist naming argument entirely by using a more generic biography template. I think WP:BEANS works here as well. Lastly, there really isn't anything in this infobox that makes it unique anyway (I can't honestly think of any pertinent data about a terrorist that would require inclusion in an infobox anyway, at least not if the person met the notability requirements). bahamut0013 ♠♣ 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except for the difference in name, this template seems to be a substantial duplicate of {{Infobox Officeholder}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahahahahahahahaha! —SlamDiego_←T 20:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. That's not quite how I intended it. A Freudian slip, perhaps... :) What I meant was that it just contains a transclusion of {{Infobox Officeholder/Personal data}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:43, 16 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:Busiest airports in Europe

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 (deletion pending until I can clean its use from all articles) - Nabla (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Busiest airports in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Adds little encyclopedic value to articles. Information can be included int he article by a single "see also" or a link in the article proper. — CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds no value to articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the article is poorly referenced (wp:NOR) Sebastian scha. (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:42, 18 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:Synthese

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 a link to a site that then needs using a not common application is of little to no use. Not enough to need a template for it, nor WP is supposed to gather users for the site [as a personal note: the site's concept looks interesting, but still not worthy of a WP template] - Nabla (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template links to a non-Wikipedia page of dubious reliability, which requires a download in order to use. We shouldn't be sending users out to non-Wikipedia pages under such circumstances. The User who created the template also has the same name as the website the template is directing to. — Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sure why the template exists but it definitely doesn't seem like something we should be telling our readers to do. naerii 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate link. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, inappropriate link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters

• ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this project to provide a way for students to look at models or objects which exists some where in museums or laboratories and are not available to the general public in this way. The Photosynth project by Microsoft was a big inspiration for me. I just wanted to create an application which is a little more open (for example the file format in which the coordinates for the planes are saved is XML). Also I wanted the users to contribute their own Photos to the project. Since 3D is not possible in a Browser yet and implementing a computer vision algorithm in javascript is not very efficient I wrote a Desktop application. I also collaborated with our local university to create this project. I can understand the security concerns. I merely thought that wikipedia and my project are matching in a particular way since both are relying on the content creation by the user. Best regards. --ipluggs

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:WTO Ministerial Conferences

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 - Nabla (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WTO Ministerial Conferences (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, replaced by Template:WTO nav. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:19, 11 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:Droylsden F.C. squad

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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Droylsden F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus is that only clubs that currently play in a fully professional league should have current squad templates. – Pee Jay 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there a discussion noting this? I counted 20 non-league templates, that would not meet the notability if so. --Jimbo^[online] 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from my recollection consensus is nothing of the sort, and it was considered that the number of linked players was the important thing. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom - I could have sworn that consensus was as I recall, but I'm obviously wrong. My opinion stands that clubs outside the pro leagues shouldn't have squad templates, but that's irrelevant now. – Pee Jay 20:38, 13 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:Blpinfo

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 Orphan and consider for use on talk pages. Do not use in the mainspace without a broad discussion at, for example, VPP as doing so violates current policy (WP:NDA). (Leaving the orphaning to others.) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used on a tiny amount of pages, does not appear to have had any discussion regarding its inclusion in the mainspace, and probably isn't all that useful. naerii 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks a lot like a disclaimer to me. I was surprised when I saw it. --Raijinili (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, something like this could be added to the BLP template added on the talk page though. Good idea. ViperSnake151 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of our readers and bio-subjects won't know about the talk page or noticeboards, they only know what is displayed on the page itself. ("Read what they're saying about you, mate!"). The intention is to make key information on BLPs directly visible to a reader or subject as a small professional footnote, so that if there were a genuine issue, the reader will know exactly what the situation is and what to do. (It would be seen as a Good Thing by someone who happened to have a concern on a BLP article, and it reinforces that readers can help identify issues, which may get more eyeballs.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but currently it's only used on maybe ~10 articles and has had (as far as I can tell) almost no discussion. It seems to be largely abandoned. How would you feel about removing it from articles that it's currently in and starting a discussion on VPP? naerii 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:FT2 is the original creator of the article, so if shlee's here talking about it, I wouldn't call it abandoned. Bad marketing, maybe. --Raijinili (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NDA. If there is any value in such a template, it should go on the discussion page, not main article space. Also, general tone and language is problematic. For example, does WP only "[aim] for an exceptionally high standard" on BLP articles, as it suggests, with lower standards for other articles? Further, just because one might be "affected" or "concerned" about an article doesn't necessarily make that article "substandard", as the template's language suggests. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NDA. If there's any consensus for displaying this type of message, it should go on article talk pages and be activated by the "living=yes" parameter of {{WPBiography}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning on keep) I agree that it should not be used in the main space, for the above reasons. But the template may have some good use by pointing out how to handle BLP issues, WP is not exactly easy for newcommers... So why not reword and document its use (talk page only) instead? Or is there something against such use and/or another similar template? - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be incorporated into {{blp}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 19 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.