Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 28

< February 27	February 29 >

February 28

Template:Hiddencat

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 speedy close - TFD is not the appropriate place to dispute the implementation of a software feature. —Random832 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template and the __HIDDENCAT__ attribute are not useful (readers have not raised major objections to them being there.), this was implemented without MAJOR community discussion, and it seem to be only used to obscure problems.. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For discussion of the attribute see wp:VPT#HIDDENCAT.--Patrick (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "there wasn't enough discussion" argument comes up every time there's a new Wikipedia process or software feature. No matter how much discussion takes place before implementation, someone always complains that there wasn't enough. The same arguments cropped up when the new article message box design emerged, and when non-admin rollback launched. Hiddencat doesn't "obscure problems"; in many cases there's a big box at the top of the article detailing what the problems are. Is that somehow not good enough? szyslak 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone notices every discussion. Anything that makes it all the way into software development/implementation has probably been considered fairly well... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you and I appear to disagree over what constitutes "useful" additions to MediaWiki. Also, "MAJOR community discussion" is not required for changes to either this wiki or to the software it runs (in the case of the former, see WP:BOLD). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new feature is a major boon for readers, who don't need to see the categories intended for editors. This template is useful in that it indicates where the magic word is being used. Harryboyles 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is no reason whatsoever for the normal reader to read the admin categories based on the status of the article. Hmains (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories, so it's conceivable a different decision may be reached, but so far the new feature seems to have been generally well received, so no justification now for deleting this template.--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The application of self-referential categories has been a long standing problem, with a long history of discussion. It seems clear that HIDDENCAT will be used for maintenance categories and perhaps others as well. If you don't like the feature, you can turn it off in your preference page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:33, 29 February 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:Needscriticism

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, and a template calling for a "larger criticism section" carries the misleading assumption that separate sections for "criticism" or "controversy" are considered desirable by most of the community. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure states that separation of content based on point of view "may warrant attention", and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure also discourages such a style of writing. Note that Category:Articles needing larger criticism sections is populated by this template. szyslak 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-As explained above, criticism sections aren't really a good thing; a template that presents them as something required is way out of line. Honestly, this comes close to WP:CSD#T2.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely on the edge of T2, but since Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure is "only a guideline" and the passage in WP:NPOV is phrased as a suggestion, I figure this template is "not quite there" as a speedy candidate. szyslak 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If an article "needs critcism", then it is not written from a neutral point-of-view. Therefore, Template:POV would work just as well. Lovelac 7 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is there a template to promote a bad thing? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, or failing that Delete. Criticism sections are bad, not just for NPOV, but because it encourages disjointed writing. Andjam (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no article needs a criticism section. As noted above, Template:POV is available and is a much better way to flag POV problems. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 3 March 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:mph

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the disused conversion templates listed yesterday, {{mph}} is no longer needed. Superceeded by {{convert}} & without any article-space transclusions, it & its subpages, {{mph/rnd}} & {{mph/doc}}, can be deleted. J ɪ m p 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Harryboyles 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. —dima /talk/ 22:53, 5 March 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:State Radio

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template's sole purpose is to display a list of a state's radio markets when supplied the state. As no articles exist on specific radio markets, no article which ever uses this template would be included in the template. Moreover, the radio markets displayed using this template already have their own templates, which include the stations that might possibly utilize this template. Long story short - serves no purpose. — JPG-GR (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as there is only one article that is using this template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:31, 29 February 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:WikiProject Totalitarianism

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 Defer to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Totalitarianism. This is a functioning part of a WikiProject that is currently being discussed on MFD. Thus it should be discussed there, not here, because that discussion will practically decide if the template will be kept or deleted based on the reasons presented by the nominator here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the image is actually stored on the Wikimedia Commons (specifically Commons:Image:Ingsoc logotype.jpg), you might want to start a discussion on Commons:Commons:Deletion requests because Commons does not allow fair use images. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template and the WikiProject associated with it are a harsh violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, "totalitarianism" is a disputed and controversial term. In addition to this, the template is being used to flag the talk pages of people, organizations and even countries that might only be slightly related to the concept of totalitarianism, such as Talk:Germany. Finally, the image used in the template is most likely not fair use. Nightmare X (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include in MfD. Since the entire WikiProject is up for deletion at MfD, I would wait and see what happens there. As for the Ingsoc logo, even though it's based on the description from Nineteen Eighty-Four, this particular rendering looks an awful lot like the one from the movie. I suggest we tag it as fair use and upload a free rendering (preferably SVG). Lovelac 7 05:29, 28 February 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:International relations of New Zealand

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles are about New Zealand, only about organizations in which NZ is but one of many members. Going unsused. Delete or merge with {{New Zealand bilateral relations}} Kevlar67 (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I personally believe that the bilateral template as is specifies just the bilateral forum of NZ relations, but the international relations template gives the much broader perspective of NZ relations in general, as does the Canadian template, etc... Taifar ious1 04:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages would you propose using them on though? Would you have have one of these boxes for every UN member at the bottom of the UN page? The Commonwealth? Francophonie? NO! It would be huge and ugly. That's the problem with these boxes, they have usful information but it simply duplicates the Foreign relations of XXXX artilces and they can't be used on the pages that are in the template which is a major no-no in the world of WP templates. Kevlar67 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am SOOOOO tempted to fix your spelling, but no, i will restrain myself, i see your point and will concede to you, feel free to delete the template if you would like, although i still believe my point is valid, but i see no outcome where i will be victorious..... Taifar ious1 05:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I can't spell. Never have been able to. Big deal, so what? Regardless, you haven't shown where this infobox would be useful. It is quite pretty looking but duplicates Foreign relations of New Zealand but is less complete. And the box isn't used on the pages it links to which is a serious no-no. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 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:Canada ties

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles are about Canada, only about organizations in which Canada is but one of many members. Going unsused. Replaced by much more useful {{Foreign relations of Canada}} Kevlar67 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaced by {{Foreign relations of Canada}} —dima /talk/ 22:54, 5 March 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:Saginaw Valley State University

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a red-tinted copy of Template:Michgigan State University, and confusingly enough, most everything in the template links to Michigan State University articles. — Lovelac 7 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Why would anyone want to copy anything made at MSU? Now if it was something made with Chippewa pride at Central, then everyone would want to copy it! —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:16, 29 February 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:Comics-tense

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 replace with general version. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is like {{cleanup-tense}}, except that it's used solely for comics-related articles. Because the tense-cleanup workload isn't especially large, and because comics articles don't need any different type of tense cleanup from non-comics articles, I don't see any reason for a subject-specific template in this area. Uses of this template should be replaced by {{cleanup-tense}}. Note that there is an associated category, Category:Comics articles using past tense.. szyslak 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with {{cleanup-tense}} (via a switch or something). -- Ned Scott 03:44, 28 February 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.