Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 8

< March 7	March 9 >

March 8

Template:Liberators

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. Not much point in having a navbox that most people would agree can't be used on many of the articles it contains. Also, little navigational value, likely to be covered in internal links. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Template:Liberators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

This is an essentially orphaned tempelate of a fictional supervillian team (currently only used on 2 pages) that only appeared in 4 issues of the Ultimates comic book series, and has not been utilized since (and likely will not be due to all the characters gruesome demises in the series). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep (?) I'm not sure why this template isn't useful on the pages where it does appear. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated, as it is essenitally relegated to one page, and that asside from a character a brief character list, the template is compromised of speculation and orginal research on a bed of no notablity. I love the storyline and characters., but the character page would barely pass an AfD, let alone a singular non-notable template. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete since there is no likelyhood that the template would ever actually be used on the pages that it contains (e.g. Russian-American relations) [and thank god for that]. Kevlar67 (talk) 22:57, 18 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:Signatures/Weirdy

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. I userfied it. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user signature. Templates should not be used for user signatures. 209.244.43.122 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:SIGNATURE. JPG-GR (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Signatures should not be placed in a subpage, rather in your main user page. A Raider Like Indiana (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still has some transclusions that will need to be subst before deletion. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or relocate to Weirdy's userspace. Orderinchaos 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to user's namespace, per my rationale in the below TFD. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typing in {{Signatures/Weirdy}} is more work than typing in four tildes, but it also does not belong in the main space. おべんとうむすび (Contributions) 08:54, 13 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:Signature4862

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 deleted by User:Tiptoety per WP:CSD#G7. (Original author agreed to deletion in this TFD.) Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user signature. Templates should not be used for user signatures. — 209.244.43.122 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:SIGNATURE. JPG-GR (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move title- I think we should not rush in and delete this but move the page under a userspace name for example it could go User:Example/Signature. AndreNatas (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Obvious violation of WP:SIG, so moving it across to User:Argav/Signature and deleting the resulting redirect (as it'll be a cross-namespace redirect) seems like the best option. I *believe* -- although am not certain -- that sigs made in the userspace should be substituted, so the current use as an actual signature (there only appears to be one, on Talk:Star Wars: Revelations) should be subst'd, assuming my memory's serving me correctly. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - Moved it, someone can delete the redirect now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argav (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 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:User mo-2

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 keep. Arguing in the wrong place (make your argument in the talk page of Moldovan language). Thx. El_C 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sense. Not a single user can be found to prove to speak it. BereTuborg (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, unless I'm missing something this appears to be an anti-Moldovan POV push. User currently has an editing restriction on eastern European related articles, as outlined on his talk page. Further, there's someone using this template on their userpage, and other people have similar ({{user mo-4}}, etc) templates on their userpages. Looks like a bad faith nom. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No S___. You find me a person in this world to say he speak it. BereTuborg (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every user in this category does, and since we assume good faith that's good enough for me. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. They just copy paste. Don't tell me you haven't do it the same. They don't since I asked them and I know perfectly well what language I speak. BereTuborg (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression you are simply disputing the legitmacy of Moldovan as a language as opposed to a dialect, considering its similarlity to the Romanian language. Am I correct? If so, attempting to delete a userbox in the name of your POV is not the way to go about it. Starting a discussion on the talk page of Moldovan language would be the correct place to do it, not pushing your POV on pages related to it. Find sources to back up your argument, discuss it on the aforementioned page and when the community comes to a consensus, then -- and only then -- should a nomination like this be made. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AllynJ, I assume good faith about you. I would do the same if I were you. But this is not even the case here. This is not even a dialect. And I repeat. Not even a dialect. How can be a dialect something that when it was written in the independence declaration few years ago, and it was written in it that the official language of Moldova is Romanian. Only after gaining the power the new elected Gov. changed the name. The language is still the same. BereTuborg (talk) 19:05, 8 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:WikimediaCommons

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 redirecting to {{Nowcommons}} by User:Kubek15. Seems like a plausible redirect to me. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Almost patent nonsense but not quite, so it does not appear to be eligible for speedy deletion. The template was created by a suspected sockpuppet of User:TheKittenBoy. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we delete media that is available on both here and the Commons. This template seems to suggest both should co-exist, which isn't the case. This is completely redundant, especially since {{NowCommons}} is already in place, doing the correct thing. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the way it was used, see here. The standard interface message "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." is already complicated enough to understand - at least for me. Delete this template in order to avoid complicating things further. -- User:Docu
Improved the template. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks better now, but it's still beside the point really... The problem is images aren't supposed to coexist on both a Wikipedia project and the Commons. If it's on the Commons it can be viewed on any Wikipedia project without uploading to each individual one. Images that have been moved there are infact eligible for speedy deletion, see: Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons and Wikipedia:CSD#I8. Seeing as how there's already a template indicated they can be speedily deleted it's a redundant template. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Template:NowCommons. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:01, 11 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:Wiktionary-inline

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{wiktionary}} covers the function perfectly and with more and better function.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both of the templates are more appropriate in certain circumstances, having the option to use a slightly different layout is useful. Adambro (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pray tell, what circumstances?~~nvmAsrghasrhiojadrhr (talk)Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~~nvmAsrghasrhiojadrhr (talk)[reply]
Keep as Adambro. (I really dislike right-floating boxes, though that is irrelevant. ;). Conrad.Irwin 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pray tell, what circumstances?~~nvmAsrghasrhiojadrhr (talk)Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep inline template is useful depending on the size and number of wikipoject links being used, and on what section it is being used in. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't all Sisterproject templates be at the bottom of the article?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)nvmAsrghasrhiojadrhr (talk)[reply]
Question: Isn't this template redundant to the [[wiktionary:PAGENAME]] or [[wikt:PAGENAME]] code? See e.g. word. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 14 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:Commonscat-inline

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. John254 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{wikicommons}} covers the function perfectly and with more and better function.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this template is actually a much neater solution to Wikimedia Commons, especially if in the "See also" section of an article. Seth Whales (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both of the templates are more appropriate in certain circumstances, having the option to use a slightly different layout is useful. Adambro (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's different from {{commons}} as it displays the link differently. It's most useful in cases where the right side is already filled with infoboxes. -- User:Docu
Keep Right-floating boxes are not always what you want. This is good when the link should appear in a list, for instance. —Ian Spackman (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Gryffindor 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DOcu previously, the inline template is useful depending on the size and number of wikipoject links being used, and on what section it is being used in. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use it because it is a url and not an image or a quote or information that should be boxed. -- carol (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I use it when there are multiple entries. The display is much neater than having them displayed as boxes individually especially when there are more than two for articles that cover broad subject area. --Mattissa (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps it would make more sense to add a parameter to {{Commons}} which would allow for possibility of inline display and to get rid of this template?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 14 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:Mocha (rapper)

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 main article is deleted as well as the discography page, making this template unnecessary anymore --JForget 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing navigation between a very small number of articles, the inclusions of which are disputed. Additionally, it's only used on one page which is subject to a prod. Delete as useless template. Cloudz679 (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also no longer used in any article, rendering it redundant. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:34, 11 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:Capitals by continent (template)

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 deleted by User:RedirectCleanupBot. Appears to have been redirected incorrectly by the original author. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this template needs to exist... Is it just to link the pages together? I don't see any page this would ever be used on, and a category - such as Category:Capitals of the world navigational boxes, or something - would be infinitely better suited to linking the templates. Currently the only pages this is used on are the templates it links to, which, as I've said, would be infinitely better suited to a category. Unless I'm missing some precedent set by similar templates, but I've never seen any.. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are lots of precedents actually. In fact, the Capitals in Africa template is essentially redundant to Template:African capitals. We also have Template:Countries of Africa, Template:Culture of Europe, Template:Christianity in Europe and lots and lots of other examples. If you go into any of the cats that start with Category:X navigational boxes where the X is a continent name, you will see examples such as those I just cited. You could use this template on the page of any capital city in the world. Of course the problem (and why I said delete) is that most of these already exist in one for or another. Here are Template:North American capitals, Template:South American capitals, Template:Asian capitals, etc. Probably need some merging. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't really what I meant. Were they not duplicates, the sub-templates (the templates that links to) would've been fine, nor was I nominating them. (Although, I have since redirected those that are duplicates.) My problem is with the one I've linked, which appears to be a template with the sole purpose of linking other templates together, and that seems pointless to me; and categorisation has been the norm for as long as I can remember for grouping templates. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:08, 8 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:BLP-blanked

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. This is not what BLP is for or about. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template for censoring the Hal Turner article, nowhere in WP:BLP does it say that pages containing ANY unsourced content must be immediately blanked. Orphaned. — ViperSnake151 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the nomination couldn't be more wrong, apart from the fact it's currently orphaned. Will ^(talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provided something along the lines of the note I've added is used:

Note: This template is intended for use in extreme cases of BLP violations, such as pages created solely to disparage their subjects. It may also be used when the subject of the article him/herself has complained or threatened Wikipedia with legal action, such as through E-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. In cases of reasonable, good-faith content disputes which do not involve potential defamation, the offending content should be removed or tagged with appropriate templates, and discussed on the article's talk page.

<eleland/talkedits> 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, okay - noting this, maybe we should make it so that it can ONLY be used when accompanied by an Attack Page speedy deletion. ViperSnake151 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the page is blanked by an administrator do we really need a tag to say as much? It sould be obvious. I just don't see the use of this tag.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BLP policy notes that problematic articles should be stubbed or deleted via an appropriate deletion process; it does not mention anything about blanking. If a page is so problematic that no content is salvageable and it must be blanked (i.e. it cannot be stubbed), then one might just as well add a speedy deletion notice. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:29, 13 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.