Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A non-notable template for a non-notable video game. --Jonny2x4 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All of them are just redirects back to the main article. Delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - That's my fault actually. They originally linked to a few stand-alone articles, but I redirect them to the RoD article since their original authors didn't actually write anything on them (they were plagiarized bios from the official RoD website). Jonny2x4 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No character pages, no need for template. Character pages would be a moot point anyway as they all come from one solo game and some cameoed in another.--Kung Fu Man 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (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 redirect to Template:Simpsons character by Night Gyr and Crazytales

Incomplete nonsense template created by someone with questionable contributions. Correct template exists as Template:Simpsons character--Natalie 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedied as nonsense. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And redirected. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 18:56, 27 January 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Single use re-direct of the the standard Infobox City template. MJCdetroit 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Subst and delete like all single use templates Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Night Gyr. Xiner (talk, email) 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The template can only be used for one thing. {{Infobox City}} on the other hand should be used in place of this template. Help:A quick guide to templates says that templates are "used to add recurring messages to pages" which is what this one does not do. → JARED ^(t) 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Too specific, use standard template - • The Giant Puffin • 10:36, 28 January 2007 (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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No longer used, and obsolete now that the "current-collaboration" parameter has been added to {{WPMILHIST}}. --Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Template is not used, and is obsolete. → JARED ^(t) 21:04, 26 January 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Concern that this essay may not reflect the opinions of many Wikipedians or may be unbalanced". So friggin' what? Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything. If you don't like an essay's tone, {{sofixit}}. Create your own essay, or go to dispute resolution. There really is no point in adding NPOV tags to pages that are supposed to represent opinions. >Radiant< 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a tone of civility might be nice? "So friggin' what?" What sort of language is this? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bowdlerized language, of course. >Radiant< 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, very uncivil. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was going to the template to add the TfD tag and found that Radiant! had beaten me to it. This template isn't particularly useful, as NPOV doesn't apply to essays (which express the point of view of one or more Wikipedians). Discussing changes on the talk page is a better thing to do than to use a tag. --ais523 17:00, 25 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Other NPOV templates exist. Xiner (talk, email) 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you tell me which ones exist that can be used for Wikipedia essays? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Almost all essays are going to fall under this category; if they had a consensus behind them, they would not be essays. And essays need not be balanced; in fact, ones which express an opinion can't be. -Amark moo! 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Out of interest, where does it state this on Wikipedia? I don't remember seeing any guidelines for essays. And how does this relate to what Xiner just wrote - he says we can apply other NPOV tags! One more thing: if essays can be POV, should we allow them? Some essays are written in an authoritative tone, however, I don't agree with what they say. Newbies and others may think it is policy. Does this mean I can change the essay to make it more balanced, or do I have to write a counter essay to give the opposing POV? If this is the case, like I said before, isn't this the place for the meta site? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - if it's an essay, it's not always clear to new users that it might be not represent the POV of the community. So, if someone writes an essay, and someone else finds it ridiculously POV, there will now be no way to come and clean it up without changing the actual text (and provoking a bitter edit warring with the creator). It's not really redundant with the NPOV template, because that refers to articles. Just look at m:Guerilla UK spelling campaign and m:Gorilla US spelling campaign for two great examples (the first article says it's supposed to be a joke, but I think it's actually just a jab). I'm sure some examples like that exist on our Wiki. 64.178.98.65 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Should an IP be voting here, and should he/she be warned? Xiner (talk, email) 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - IPs can comment in discussions (not votes) all that they wish, thank you very much. If you'd like to ask any administrator, you will find this to be true. 64.178.98.65 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, because new users might think that pages clearly tagged as not having consensus support really do, essays can't express strong opinions? -Amark moo! 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - perhaps we can rephrase it, however, essays really should try to encompass as many points of view about Wikipedia as possible. Many essays are biased to the point of view about what one group of people want Wikipedia to be, and the essays are then quoted as gospel. I thought the whole point about Wikipedia was not to be divisive, and to write an encyclopedia that was neutral? (as an aside, why have essay's started cropping up? Aren't essays meant to be on meta?). Anyway, the point being, some essays are onesided. A good example is WP:ILIKEIT: this is one sided, yet it is meant to be showing how not to argue on xFD. However, it mentions one bad delete comment, and all the rest are keep comments! Clearly biased against those who want to delete articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a lot more than one, but maybe that's just me. WarpstarRider 11:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - A better solution may be to rephrase {{essay}}. I've seen some people asserting that essays are a kind of policy (even if they're clearly not) so perhaps the template needs work. >Radiant< 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Essays aren't supposed to be NPOV; the whole point of them is to express a particular point of view. Consensus doesn't enter into the picture at all, unless someone wants to promote it to a guideline or policy.
"Newbies and others may think it's policy"? That's what the banner stating "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline" is for. WarpstarRider 11:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yet what about essays that pick on a particular group of Wikipedians? What about essays that are divisive? However, I have written Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  - MFD is a suitable venue for essays that are clearly inappropriate. -/- Warren 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per several of the arguments above. The essay template already clarifies that it's not a policy or guideline. On a side note, Radiant might want to read WP:CIVIL. DB (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- A browser plugin is available that will replace all such naughty words as "friggin" with neat little stars. >Radiant< 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It wasn't the "friggin" part; it was more the general tone of the nomination. DB (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I friggin' dislike friggin' unnecessary templates. At the top of each essay, it already friggin' says that it's not friggin' policy. This template would be so friggin' redundant, it makes my friggin' head spin. This should be deleted as Templatecruft (or, alternatively, Frigcruft.) .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. To quote the nominator, "Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything." That's because they don't need to be enacted or anything. They're not policy, don't reflect a consensus of many Wikipedians, etc., and the fact that it's not policy is explicitly clear in {{essay}}. If you want to edit {{essay}} to make it explicitly clear that it doesn't necessarily reflect consensus, that's fine by me, but calling an essay POV is... well... duh. -- NORTH ^talk 22:03, 29 January 2007 (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 Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This template was a duplicate of {{Infobox Television episode}}. It did not add anything over this "parent" template, I therefore replaced it on all it's pages as part of a drive to limit the amount of different episode boxes --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. {{Infobox Television episode}} works just fine for this show, no need for a seperate template. And, while this shouldn't count towards its deletion, there are no usage instructions on the talk page, though it says there are on the template page... –Llama man 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate. Xiner (talk, email) 16:31, 26 January 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The template is a mess and I am not sure it adds value. It currently contains a random collection of items: MEMRI is a pro-Israel Arabic media monitoring organization, Mosaic is just an highbrow documentary series that has done work on "Jihadi" groups but so have PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama, and SITE Institute is barely notable. The template is also poorly named. 70.48.241.47 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. --70.48.241.47 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The template is useful. It help people to see that MEMRI is not unique in its work.--Patchouli 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: then add these groups under "See also" or "External Links" at Memri.Bless sins 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is... strange. What is "Jihad monitoring" supposed to mean? And why isn't every major American news outlet here? -Amark moo! 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not appropriate for a navbox: the set is neither closed nor well-defined. If this is a defining characteristic of the organizations in question, it might be useful as a category. -- Visviva 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, "jihad monitoring" is like calling a racist organization "defenders of the white race" -- not a neutral position Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is not helpful to anybody. It (rightly or wrongly) raises suspicion about the 'independence' of organisations attached to it and it is inherently subjective. When does a media outfit with an interest in the mid-east cross the line and become jihad-monitoring? Famousdog 14:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - far too vague. Unless we add a lot more groups to it. 64.178.98.65 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - jihad is a historical religious concept not a modern one. We need scholarly sources, educated in Islamic Studies to report it accurately. The template is also veyr POV.Bless sins 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete a POV based template... should be deleted. --- ALM 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Aminz 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Clearly a POV template. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: agree with Bless sins... expand other articles discussing this topic (and do so in a neutral point of view way). (→Netscott) 23:35, 1 February 2007 (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 subst and delete RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more:

_{(Moved to Template talk:NYCS/Old, so Template:NYCS service can be moved to Template:NYCS. Template talk:NYCS has been moved to Template talk:NYCS/Old talk. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC))}

Larry V (talk | e-mail) 07:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

--Tinlinkin 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in using these templates, when you can simply type out the link. They're also not being used. --NE2 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. For the last time, there was never consensus to delete these anyway. If no consensus is reached, I will have this nomination closed. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Are these just meant to be short cuts for typing out the full name of a single link? These are not what templates are supposed to be for. --Polaron | Talk 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance doesn't mean you can say "Let's introduce added strain on the servers for no good reason!" -Amark moo! 05:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a small issue, and I have to say delete it.Not many Wikipedia users uses those shortcuts and put it in some article. Just type the full name and link it.--- vBWCNY 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not nominating these now, but should the ones like template:IRT be deleted too? Those are a bit more useful, but not very. --NE2 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, useful, readble, standardizing across transit articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand this; typing Metro-North Railroad is just as standardized, and these templates are unused. --NE2 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#Templates and it seems to be part of a larger scheme. Since these are part of a wikiproject style system and aren't contravening any policy, it seems like the first step should be to talk to the people in the project and see whether they actually use them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I told the project that I listed them, though I didn't link directly. I'll go do that now. --NE2 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm a New Yorker, and I'll say this, this is templates going overboard. Xiner (talk, email) 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Delete As a very frequent contributor to WP:NYCPT, I must say that I find these templates (Template:IRT, Template:BMT, Template:IND (NYCS), Template:LIRR, Template:MNRR, Template:PATH, etc.) ~~very~~ somewhat useful in reducing typing while editing articles. However, I use them in a manner that does not cause strain on the servers—namely, with subst, thus replacing the template call with a regular link when saving. It's so much easier to type {{subst:IRT}} than [[Independent Rapid Transit|IRT]]. I would rather they not be deleted, but this is purely for convenience while editing; they don't serve a purpose beyond this. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

~~If it comes down to it, I'd say delete.~~ Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Because we are worried about straining the servers, we should keep the templates, but remember to sub them. We should add a note on templates like these to make sure they are subbed. And these templates are being used. However, they are subbed, not transcluded. That's why there arent as much links as before. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The utility is there, but it's still an utter waste of the template namespace. -- NORTH ^talk 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The subst capability is something I hadn't thought about in this case. I'll have to think about it. --NE2 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why there are no transclusion links for the template, because Alphachimpbot went through and substituted them. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think that having the templates around makes it tempting to overlink in WP:NYCPT articles. Perhaps making it more difficult to add links (by forcing one to type them out) will cause editors to think twice about doing so, and reduce the chance of saturating articles with wikilinks. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, using the wikisource gets tempting and annoying overtime. Substituting the templates, we don't have to worry about typing in the wikisource. Subbing the templates takes care of this for us. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem like you're agreeing with me, which makes no sense. I want the things deleted. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I think you misunderstood me. I want them to stay, but that is up to NE2, or someone else qualified to close it, like an admin. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed opinion here, so I'm not really neutral enough to close this fairly. However, if I were looking at another discussion like this one, I'd say that there was a rough consensus for deletion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are non-Wikipedia namespace and non-talk page related templates normally kept only for substituting purposes? Tinlinkin 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a fair number of templates used only with subst, but they tend to be more complex and dynamic than these (e.g. Template:Uw-vandalism4im). These nominated templates do nothing but insert piped links, which would only change if their target articles were renamed, and this is highly unlikely. Thus, their encyclopedic usefulness is very limited. As per WP:TFD: "…proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever… the template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". From my point of view, these templates are not very helpful or noteworthy. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete These templates are not noteworthy or helpful in Wikipedia and now only serve to make for greater convenience for a few editors. As NE2 pointed out, many of the links that the templates produce can be typed out, and some will redirect correctly (e.g. instead of {{MNRR}}, use [[MNRR]], producing MNRR). And if eliminating redirects or disambiguation is desirable, that's easy to do. It's an editor's issue whether he or she types out links and uses piped links or not. And how many more articles would these things be used in? They were useful in the heyday of building NYCT articles; but as the articles are now beginning to mature, these templates of simple wikilinks will become less useful in subsequent uses anyway. Tinlinkin 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Templates should never be used to transclude mainline article content. -/- Warren 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
subst: all and delete. Another case of templates masquerading as content. Clearly folk aren't subst'ing, and a bot run does not change editor behaviour. For most of these cases, it's nothing a redirect can't fix. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete. For some of these, they are actually very useful. But since only small group of editors are going to know about them, it doesn't make sense to keep them. —mako (talk•contribs) 03:29, 4 February 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant to {{UKAirports}}, no reason for individual Scottish version since the CAA is UK-wide, thanks/wangi 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as not actually Redundant. The UK list only includes airports with regular commercial operations, whereas the Scottish template includes ALL Scottish airports as found in the list List of airports in the United Kingdom, in a similar way to Template:Airports in Wales, so its existence is justified. Thanks, User:Grampiantelevision 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Keep. --MacRusgail 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Grampiantelevision Rob110178 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - mostly redundant with UK template. The list of minor airports can be ascertained from the category. DB (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Grampiantelevision 86.132.233.206 12:35, 29 January 2007 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Appears to be unused. As evidence, the template is broken as it uses the current calendar instead of the true one for July 2005. Also, there is no other template existing named "July 200x" for any other year --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unused (maybe never used at all). Redundant to the current Month_Year system of templates and pages. --- RockMFR 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If this template is kept, then templates for every other month and year should be made, and that would be quite tedious. –Llama man 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete basically useless, redundant. ~ Arjun 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above - • The Giant Puffin • 10:36, 28 January 2007 (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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 25

[edit] Template:Rage of the Dragons characters

[edit] Template:Simpsons Character

[edit] Template:Infobox Houston

[edit] Template:WPMILHIST Collaboration

[edit] Template:NPOV-essay and related Category:Essay disputes

[edit] Template:Infobox Dexter episode

[edit] Template:Jihad multimedia

[edit] Template:MNRR

[edit] Template:ScottishAirports

[edit] Template:July 2005

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search