Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates lang-en. --Dstoykov 23:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Orhpaned duplicate. --ais523 08:53, 24 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete - duplicate.--Aldux 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Redundant orphan. Nothing but love. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Per nomination of Indo-Iranian speaking, below. This template is also full of debateable assertions (most notably on Turkish Cyprus), without room to debate them. I support deleting both. --Septentrionalis 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There are losts of them, Template:Slavic speaking, Template:Iranian speaking but the template Indo-Iranian speaking is without a offical languages just adding the countries where the language speak. It's different. If you contine to voting deletion of the template, i will add Iranian-speaking, Slavic-speaking, Germanic speaking, Latin speaking etc.. Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 21:53 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You've already added one, and if you add any others you risk serious consequences for WP:POINT violations. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Uh, yeah, I don't see the problem with this template. Why is Template:Slavic-speaking okay, but this isn't? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I believe that templates grouping countries speaking languages of the same language family are valuable and informative. The issues regarding what entities / states should be included in this template must be worked on and resolved. There are many other templates of exactly the same status, all standing without problem and not nominated for deletion. I do not see why Template:Turkic-speaking should be deleted while Template:Germanic Europe, Template:Slavic-speaking, Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations, Template:Austronesian-speaking, etc. are standing. Please check Category:Country and territory templates for further instances. Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - any POV about Cyprus can be removed. In any case, TRNC is Turkic-speaking, doesn't matter what you call it; TRNC, Turkish occupation, northern Jupiter, Disneyland, Southern Andromeda - they speak Turkish. As Atilim pointed out above, there are many similar templates. This is definitely a bad faith nom: don't import debates from other AfDs or CfDs, every debate has its own place. Baristarim 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but beware of WP:POINT, Tewfik^Talk 06:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, there are lots of other tepmlates for various languages. Saxonia5 19:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Turkic languages are verifiable. I wonder if this TFD and the Indo-Iranian one are related...Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Intended as a navigation box, but only contains one link [there is only one AAA anticonvulsant] so is useless for navigating. No transclusions either. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - navboxes and navbox components with only one link are pointless. Chris cheese whine 22:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete single-link navbox, Tewfik^Talk 06:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, {{db-disambig}} doesn't quite apply, and this doesn't come up often enough to be added to WP:CSD#G6, so we'll just have to go the slow way. --ais523 13:33, 24 November 2006 (U T C)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was ANNIHILATE!! --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally useless template that would just put unecessary load on the servers. I suggest we do what the template says and 'ANNIHILATE!' it! ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In an abuse of irony, ANNIHILATE! Chris cheese whine 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, which is anyways a far more efficient term. Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete pointless. This is not the same as {{ANNIHILATE}} (which was RfD'd a while ago). --ais523 08:54, 24 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete I fail to see a single sensible use for that one. Charon X/talk 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
ANNIHILATE! - although technically the template is now in use --T-rex 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template has no transclusions and has been succeeded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - redundant. Chris cheese whine 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete redundant and replaced template, Tewfik^Talk 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete not needed anymore --TheJosh 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant to better template {{Infobox Australian Place}}, not linked to any articles. --Orderinchaos78 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - redundant. Chris cheese whine 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete redundant and replaced template, Tewfik^Talk 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete obsolete template --TheJosh 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant — Moondyne 13:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this would do for an article apart from making it rather large and ugly.><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 07:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What the ... !? No idea what on earth this template is all about. Chris cheese whine 22:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete orphan without clear usage, Tewfik^Talk 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I have no clue in hell what this is supposed to be (maybe a template for Aussie Rules playoffs?), I'll just note that it's an ugly orphan and go with delete per Tewfik. -- Kicking222 02:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never in my life SEEN a template that had more or that many parameters... 68.39.174.238 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. What the heck, 280 parameters? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft. Whisp e ring 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unused and rather silly template ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Given that the name is {{Test5}} backwards, and given the contrib history of the creator, I'd guess that this is either a test page or vandalism; I'll just go tag it for speedy. --ais523 09:32, 23 November 2006 (U T C)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep until no longer used. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic. All of the galleries herein have been nominated to be transwikied to Wikimedia Commons. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Unencyclopedic? Wha? When all of the galleries have been transwikied, and aren't just proposed to be, you have a good argument. But a nomination doesn't mean it will happen. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep until... There have been AfD for these articles. See

And all the results were keep. And there has been a discussion on how to break up these galleries at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. When the method of partition is decided, the plan will be carried out and, of course, more encyclopedia text will be added. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as long as there's pocket-change in the 'pedia, Tewfik^Talk 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Galleries are the number one visual aid encyclopedias have. Until commons has all images, no deal. Also, these are invaluable tools in guiding a searcher across the globe thru currency/art, and easily show weak areas in our work. Joe I 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool® 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete The template is very empty because "..speaking-nations" templates categorized with an offical language but this template is categorize nations where the language speak, according this template what is next? English speaking nations template with 250 countries? Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 01:19 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are many "..speaking-nations" templates such as Template:Turkic-speaking, that you yourself created and maintain, which proves that this is a POV nomination. --ManiF 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the scope of this template is far too broad. PS WP:AGF. Chris talk back 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, in no way supporting "This is a POV nomination". But I don't really see what the problem with the template is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep WP:POINT nomination. I'm also sensing double standards considering Zaparojdik's active support for including as many entries as possible at Template:Turkic-speaking.--Euthymios 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep since such templates exist, i see no reason why this one should be deleted... Hectorian 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Real funny, Zaparojdik was the one that created the Turkic speakers template. Suspicious...Khosrow II 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Those templates are (Turkic speaking, Iranian speaking etc.) are with an offical language but this template have nothing to do with them. It's funny to adding Vietnam :) Really funny.. Then I'm going to create English speaking nations and there will be 232 countries, ok? Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 20:12 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Indo-Iranian Language is an important category in Linguistic. This is different to [1] which you created and was deleted because of "nasty pan-turkic bias".--Pejman47 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The funniest thing would be to list all the Indian states seperately (as done in the Turkic-speaking template with Karakalpakstan, part of Uzbekistan)... This way, there would be 30 most entities listed! Hectorian 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Either make into a category, or write into article text and explain. Several POV assertions on debateable cases and linguistic claims; and the term Indo-Aryan should never be used without context and justification. Septentrionalis 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Bad faith nominations are being thrown all around today. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A useful and important template with no problem. Siba 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Turkic languages (above), and beware of WP:POINT. Tewfik^Talk 06:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big friend of this whole series of nav-boxes, but if we need to have them, well, okay. But this one overlaps with Template:Iranian-speaking, which covers a subset of it. Therefore: Rename to Template:Indo-Aryan speaking and prune down to just that branch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, these boxes are easy information sources! Saxonia5 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Indo-IRanian languages are verifiable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Turkey listed in first without offical Iranic language. The template was POV at first. Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I wonder why Template:Turkic-speaking which covers a whole language family should exist, while template Indo-Iranians which even is not as broad as the Turkic-speaking, but is simply a subbranch of a language family (Indo-Europeans) be nominated for deletion. Awat 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Many of the official languages of the states listed are not part of the Indo-Iranian group. The official language of Bhutan is Dzongkha which originates from Tibet not Iran. However, Nepali - which is a part of the Indo-Iranian group but not recognised as an official language - is spoken by a minority. English is also an official language of Bhutan, but I don't think it would be put under a West Germanic languages template, if there is one. This template needs serious work, but I don't think it needs to be deleted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These templates are similar to {{zh-cp}}, {{zh-cpw}}, {{zh-sp}}, {{zh-spw}}, {{zh-tp}}, {{zh-tpw}}, but only make Chinese text inside as links to Wiktionary as a whole. They have been created for long time but almost no one use them, and, in most cases, what we want is to link each character to Wiktionary separately, but these six templates do not help. (so no one use them) Yao Ziyuan 07:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do we want to link to characters instead of words in Wiktionary? If we talk about a Chinese word, we should link to the word's entry, not the individual characters. Kusma (討論) 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Two points, (1). No one uses it at this time. (2) I mean, actually we have better method without zh-d-xxx, for example, create a new template called "zh-d" or something alike, and use {{zh-c|{{zh-d|一}}{{zh-d|二}}{{zh-d|三}}}}, this is much more flexible. —The preceding comment was added by Yao Ziyuan (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Or just use [[wikt:一|]] for 一 instead of your {{zh-d}}. Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] November 23

[edit] Template:in en

[edit] Template:Turkic-speaking

[edit] Template:Aromatic allylic alcohol anticonvulsants

[edit] Template:Annihilate

[edit] Template:Infobox MelbourneSuburbTable4

[edit] Template:Australian Local Government Area

[edit] Template:AFL XXXX Round YY

[edit] Template:5tseT

[edit] Template:Numismatic Galleries

[edit] Template:Indo-Iranian-speaking

[edit] Template:zh-d-xxx

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search