Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 30

< June 29	July 1 >

June 30

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

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. Misleading template. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is misleading, as it wrongly implies that mere appearance on the Biographical Directory is sufficient indication that the image is in the public domain. Indeed, the Biographical Directory's copyright information sets forth "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law". United States works generally fall into the public domain using criteria of date of first publication or lifetime of the author; PD licensing should be based on these criteria, not appearance on a site which explicitly asserts that it hosts copyrighted material. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this may be speedy-able, as it is an openly misleading template. Terraxos (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be delayed until we can sort the good images from the bad ones. Deleting this will leave many pages without an image use license. Is anyone knowing enough and willing to do this? PeterSymonds (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do this, but it will take a long time. The Biographical Directory pages typically offer absolutely no indication of author or publication date, so I don't expect many to be salvageable. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, thanks for your efforts, elcobbola. I will close this as delete; let me know when you've finished and I will delete the template. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:56, 19 July 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:Greek alphabet

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek alphabet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant navbox, used only in very few of the articles for which it was designed, competes with the much more popular {{Table Greekletters}}, which is used throughout. Has been the object of a lot of quite unnecessary dispute over what to include. Not worth it. — Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to the more widely-used and better {{Table Greekletters}}. Terraxos (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the more popular one. 70.55.86.34 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{Table Greekletters}} does the job in a better way. (Note: I am Greek :) )-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 6 July 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:Buyeo languages

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buyeo languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Buyeo languages" is a name for hypothetic language family, with no linguistic evidence. This is meant to be a navigation box, but not every article would accept this template to be included, as long as it can hardly be recognized as a mere hypothesis. — Puzzlet Chung (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the subject is contested, it would be better suited as a list within Buyeo languages. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A hypothesis is not a truth. But this template would confuses the visitors, and they may misunderstand and accept the hypothesis as an actual fact. adidas (talk) 19:30, 4 July 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:Winners

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is used only to redundantly repeat information which is always already in the article. Where the result of a final match is displayed, there is no encyclopedic merit whatsoever to use this template. All it does is assist in the gratuitous and redundant overuse of national symbols. Simple and straightforward information such as how many titles that nation has won in that tournament can and should be included in the article with a simple English sentence. — Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template was created to standardize the visual appearance of these infobox-like boxes found at the end of many articles about tournaments involving national teams. Deleting this template would likely lead to editors simply using wiki markup to recreate the same information. The arguments for deletion could also be made for data found in any infobox, yet we obviously have broad consensus for infoboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful template per Andrwsc. There is no use in deleting this, as it is easier than just using Wikicode to construct it from scratch, which will certainly be done if this is deleted. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm arguing to delete in on the basis that what it does is unencyclopedic. If people continued to do it, they should be reverted and if they persist they should be blocked for disruption. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it "unencylopedic"? I think you are misusing that word. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the redundancy, also the emphasis on graphic elements. Let me give the question back: What makes it useful? What is the encyclopedic net gain? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it has the same usefulness as any other infobox-like element, that it provides "at a glance" information more quickly than having to read prose text, which might be useful for someone browsing through the series of articles about a specific sport's championships. Is it necessary? Perhaps not. Is it harmful? I can't see how. Is it helpful? Sure, a little bit. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so our opinions differ on that. I think it unnecessarily clutters up articles as a gratuitous graphical element where text works just as fine. And in all instances I've found, it merely duplicates info already in the article. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:08, 1 July 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:Education by country

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Superseded by continent-specific navboxes like {{Education in Europe}}. — Darwinek (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 23:07, 3 July 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:ConductConcern

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Billed as a way of raising user conduct issues without assuming bad faith or biting newbies, this template does exactly that. While it doesn't explicitly accuse the user of bad faith, it has an air of "You should really be blocked, but I don't feel like it today. If you're careful, and do everything I say, maybe I won't open a can of blocking on your ass". This is not the tone we should be encouraging — we should have either personal notes, or a template that actually sounds like the user wants to collaborate, rather than make thinly-veiled threats. — Werdna talk 08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very BITEy, ABF template, goodbye. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too WP:BITEey, per Werdna and MBisanz. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the most passive-aggressive template I've ever seen. :) Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 1 July 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:Alfredo Griffin Career Stats

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alfredo Griffin Career Stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1-off template I have already subst. Target of 1 redirect. Thetrick (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and unused. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 1 July 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.