Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 15

[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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happymelon 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template contains links to articles about five Australian model railway manufacturers, of which three are currently redlinks (a fourth is being considered for deletion). However, the main problem with this template is that it can never be complete, which means that it can never meet NPOV. In this case, categories are more appropriate as a navigational tool. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - why can it never be complete? Are there really that many model railway manufacturers in Australia? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not, but I don't see how we could know about them all. And it's also highly unlikely that all (or even most) are notable enough for an article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm frankly amazed at the things that are known by Wikipedian editors - I'm sure that someone out there would be deep enough in the cruft to list at least most of them (and there are lots of templates that are "incomplete" by that standard: try {{Northtexassports}} - would a hypothetical Forth Worth Flippers Table Tennis Club warrant an article? Would we even know about such clubs?). Also, given that there are two articles linked from this template it's not too far-fetched to think that others may be worth an article. As such, I'd say weak keep on this one. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 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.
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. Happymelon 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A campaignbox with only one article does not aid navigation. Also, Quantrill's raid currently redirects to Lawrence Massacre; if I'm not mistaken, the Lawrence Massacre was the only notable raid led by Quantrill. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 15 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.
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. This is political correctness gone wild; no different to CE as more 'NPOV' than AD. Wh at about English-speaking Chineese wikipedians? Are they offended by their language as being labelle d 'European'? A quarter of the world speaks "British English" because they are or have close relati ons with former British colonies. Get over it :D Happymelon 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European-English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:European-English is currently transcluded on only one talk page, Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. The template text links to the article European English, which is a disambiguation page that states that "European English" can either refer to British English or to "The English language as used by European organisations" with a link to Euro-English. Euro-English is a stub that states that "euro-English has no central norm; that is, it simply reflects the English imperfectly acquired in particular geographical areas." Furthermore, Template:European-English goes on to link to American and European English differences, which is a redirect to American and British English differences. This template is not needed; template:British-English can be used instead. Mike R (talk) 14:18, 15 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.
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. The ultimate niche cleanup template :D. Happymelon 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this template and how it is an image template. No uses. BJTalk 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it refers to the idea that a screenshot of text should be converted into text for the article. While certainly a less commonly used template, it does fulfill a possible need. The rule referred to is listed in the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images as text.
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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Analysis of the discussion indicates that there was not the widespread support for this solution that would be required to validate use of WP:IAR. A clever idea, but this is not what the template namespace is for. Happymelon 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This just shouldn't exist. Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage for example. This should be subst'ed. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The referenced discussion took place on WT:CASH. The last 2 days of commentary by _2_ contributors was moved to a separate section to create the appearance of consensus. The actual discussion that went on for a week discussed several options. From what I can tell the actual consensus was a {{seealso|Bayshore Freeway}} type solution. For the record, this is not my preferred option, but so be it. With that said, I have no opinion on this matter.Dave (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and subst: It was a decent try, but needs to be nuked per User:Davemeistermoab comment and what I think the nominator was getting at. This shouldn't exist and was against consensus. The consensus said there should be a separate article in the main namespace with the Hollywood Freeway (on 101) exit list. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:38, 15 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.