Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 31 February 2 >

Contents

[edit] February 1, 2006

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. -Splashtalk 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tviv and Template:Tviv this

Links to TV IV, an "encyclopedia of TV-related items" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep seems analogous to {{imdb name}}, {{isfdb name}} and similar external link templates. I think these are a good thing, in general. DES (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I doubt TVIV is as notable as IMDb. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a primary source and WHOA does it have a lot of ads. Boy. I am gonna love going through more External link templates. -- Netoholic @ 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spamcruft. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per DES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2006 February 3
  • Delete the adverts are just about bearable but theres hardly any information, I followed links from wiki and was presented with stubs and blank pages, there normally is an article briefly outlining a show but with a lot less detail than here. Discordance 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:51, 5 February 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. -Splashtalk 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:H2g2

Links to H2G2, another "encyclopedia of everything" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advertising for the BBC. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not a primary source. -- Netoholic @ 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spamcruft; we're not obligated to provide template space to the "competition".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nae'blis (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Phil. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete h2g2 is typically unsourced and we shouldn't promote linking to them as a scholarly reference. Ashibaka tock 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nae'blis. --CFIF 00:41, 6 February 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 ALL. -Splashtalk 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google templates

(includes Template:Google-Search, Template:GoogleImagesSearch, Template:Google Map, Template:Google Video Search, Template:Google Video Search1, Template:Google near, Template:Googleprint, and Template:Googleprintpage)

More variations of templates that have been deleted before (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005#Template:Google and related). Search links are not encyclopedic references, and linking to Google Print is poor form when the book reference should be explicitely cited, with title, publish, ISBN, etc.. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - These templates are tantamount to advertising for Google. They might qualify for speedy deletion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Buy custom adwords on Google, add custom link to Wikipedia article, ... profit? :) -- Netoholic @ 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, (and remove instances of) per above. -Xol 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, linkspam. Ouch! >Radiant< 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename, especially geographical links (e.g., "Google Map" and "Google near"). These work particularly well in some locations (e.g., in London at least). Rather than delete, it would be nice to rename to a more generic way of accessing this information (like the way "ISBN" works for example). --Jonathan Bowen 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - People know what google is and how to use it. There is no need to be linking to google. Pointing to google images is especially silly considering the content can change daily, often times pointing to unintended content.--Pinworm 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - As per above. Besides, pretty much everyone knows how to use a search engine and if someone wants more information from a search engine, they can go use one on their own. Cluttering up the external links section is also a big negative in my opinion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to much like advertising and who doesnt already google these things? Google searches shouldnt be the things we link to they are too vayge detailed resourse websites fit better than a search engine. --Seth Turner 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As discussed. Sulfur 22:08, 7 February 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. -Splashtalk 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bio

Seems to have been created for a single use due to a misunderstandign of how templates work. I have substed this in the wone use it had. Delete. DES (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete — per CSD G1. →AzaToth 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Morgan695 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge page history with User:John Coretana, then delete redirect -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Xol 23:10, 1 February 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. Wcquidditch's suggestion is an excellent one; I will do as he says. -Splashtalk 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NatureDispute

Template:NatureDispute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Now that the Wikipedia signpost has stated that all errors have been fixed, this template doesn't serve a purpose anymore.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — per nom. →AzaToth 11:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still appears, and should continue to be comprehensible, in history pages. —Cryptic (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Cryptic
  • Delete per nom. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now, anyways, per Cryptic. -Xol 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Cryptic. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical purposes. Probably put something saying that "this template is kept for historical reasons, new usage depreciated" in noincludes. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:15, 3 February 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. -Splashtalk 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Move-to-grapes

I'm confused. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 1 February 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.