Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 15 June 17 >

Contents

[edit] June 16, 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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator (Keep). SomeStranger(t) 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:YouTube

Template:Youtube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bad idea for a template, bad precendent. Links to Youtube should go in the External links section. We only link to sister projects in this manner. If the content was really that worthwhile, I would hope that someone would upload it to Wikipedia or Commons. ~MDD4696 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or at least change. Something like template:imdb would be more appropriate ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Changed to match the IMDB template format — please re-evaluate based on this. — Mike • 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've also now fixed all the various references using this template (fortunately only a few) to reflect the change. So hopefully, can this be withdrawn? I'll drop a note on the poster's talk page. — Mike • 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed delete vote, I see nothing wrong with this template as of the latest revision ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I withdraw the nomination; the change to the template fixed the problem. ~MDD4696 01:38, 18 June 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 delete. El_C 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Petition

This template was added to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court, but I believe it should be listed here instead. This template should be deleted because it merely serves as a tool to attack admins and editors by placing them in a "Shameboard". Please see the above-linked MfD for related discussion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 16 June 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 no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Campaignbox Rise of Islam

The Neutrality of this template is questionable. The templates heading says "The Rise of Islam" and points to articles of war that took place during Muhammeds time, which has nothing to do with the rise of Islam. The template miscommunicates that Islam Rose through war, which is Original Research. If this was not intended then the template heading should read as "Campaigns of Islam"  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. No legitimate reasons for deleting it have been proposed. In fact, the template is encyclopedic and performs a useful function by linking to all the battles fought by Muhammad. The suggested renaming to "Campaigns of Islam" is highly misleading, as there were many more campaigns than these in the history of Islam. The only result immediate practical result of this nomination is that a number of good articles have been disrupted by the tfd message on top of them. Pecher Talk 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What is Speedy Keep?  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Firstly, there's no reason to speedy anything this. I am a little worried that a tribe is in a campaign box. I also think the title is a tad histrionic and I would imagine that CltFn would have problems with this since he's a fan of Crone, Wansbrough, and Cook who all talk about the rise of Islam being later. I don't agree with mystic's title either. I doubt it will be deleted and I think conversation should probably start on the template talk page about these issues. gren グレン 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree with gren. I think this was taken to AFD too quickly. There's nothing inherently unencyclopedic about the content provided. Namespace issues ought to be resolve on the template talk page, not through an indignant AFD nom.—Perceval 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course, it won't be deleted, and this is why I insist on speedy keeping: why wasting the editors' time by pursuing a nomination the result of which is known from the start? If Mystic has problems with the title, he should have raised them on the talk page. Pecher Talk 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because the nominator has a right to question our linking those battles (assuming the tribes mean the battles with the tribes) into a campaign box under any title. If the nominator believes that those battles don't form a coherent entity that should be linked on a template then it's not unreasonable to nominate it. Also, this issue goes into whether or not the template should be renamed. Speedy keep is for issues where an TfD has recently failed or where the object of the TfD is so well established that it's unquestionable (which is a very high threshold). This is neither. Now, if enough people vote keep quickly enough it can get an early close so as not to keep that ugly banner around. But, an admin's choice to close a debate early is not the same as a speedy keep. gren グレン 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep A frivolous nomination. A campaignbox is perfectly appropriate to what was, by any realist approach of history, a military campaign. I suspect this realist approach is precisely the problem the nominator has with this template.Timothy Usher 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Pecher and Usher. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Timothy Usher. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per history. El_C 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a POV and tell people that Islam is rised by wars only. It is an original research and the neutrality of this template is in question. --- Faisal 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The current title of the template is POV, it should be changed to either "Campaigns of Islam" or "Campaigns by Muhammed" the current "rise of Islam" is highly inappropriate. if this cannot be accepted it should be deleted.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Presumably we'll want to remove all the non-military links from the template, then? Kirill Lokshin 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Also, IMHO, conquering half the World is cooler than hanging on a cross. -- Heptor talk 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to "Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Islam"per Mystic--SomeStranger(t) 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - Its not about the "Rise" of Islam, but about battles during Muhammads lifetime, change it to something resembling what it actually is. Some would be better placed in a "battles of Ali" section.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:51, 21 June 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 delete by Zscout370. SomeStranger(t) 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User RuneScape 75

Template:User RuneScape 75 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Originally, J.J.Sagnella marked it for speedy deletion, but since it isn't inflammatory, it doesn't qualify. Since I'm not very familiar with RuneScape, no vote. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for incorrectly listing it. This template is too specific. It could be no more than 10 or so Wikipedians and not wanted. J.J.Sagnella 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep on these grounds; we have lots of templates which apply to single digits of pages. As a personal note, I find "noobs" mildly inflammatory; please add emoticon or link to the Noob. Septentrionalis 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep as Creator Even if it is deleted,would it be permissible to keep it on MY PAGE ONLY? p00rleno 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If you take the source code for it and put it in your userpage of course. I'm struggling to see why you didn't do that in the first place. J.J.Sagnella 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thought other high lvl RS users might like... p00rleno 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The other pet peeve I have with this is the word "noob" is usually used by new players and high-leveled players rarely use the word. J.J.Sagnella 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of the term "noob" was intended purely to be humorous, and if you/anyone has an issue with the term it can be altered to something like "this player is serious..." etc. p00rleno 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not keep, privilege is spelled wrong, and sorry, but you do not have any sort of special privilege to call others noobs. WikiSlasher 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete encourages users to use the word 'noob' in wikipedia talk, which I am against.--

Andeh 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I expect civilised, correct grammar and vocabulary, not weak, almost meaningless words like "noob". Wikipedia is better than this. J.J.Sagnella 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - How can such template help building an encyclopedia? Afonso Silva 13:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with Afonso Silva, and this is a particularly useless userbox. —Centrx→talk 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I choose to allow deletion of said page without further discussion. Upon putting it on my page, i discovered an error which prohibited proper display. I will continue to try to make it work, but just in a personal sandbox. The page may be removed. From the template's creator, p00rleno 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can mark something you created with {{db-author}} if there are no other significant contributors (I don't believe there are here; just a spelling change and deletion nominations.) I've done it for you. Grandmasterka 01:58, 19 June 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 -- Drini 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Footballers

Template:Footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Unused, and not an actual template anyway, just a structure for creating articles. Nothing links to it, and WikiProject Football already has standards in place, so this is unlikely to be useful if moved over there. The author of the template also seems to have left Wikipedia. — sjorford++ 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - WikiProject Football has already discussed and created better templates and structures for articles related with footballers. Afonso Silva 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 00:19, 20 June 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 (empty) -- Drini 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Ferrari

Template:User Ferrari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
redirected to user namespace per WP:TGS, and all inclusions have been altered to the new page. This is now orphaned. Speedy deletion if appropriate. DJR (Talk) 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Question/Comment As this is actually a redirect created by a page move, would this be better placed at WP:RFD? I would also suggest that the use of Template:GUS UBX to might be more appropriate than deletion in this case. —Mira 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I went to look at the template, and there was nothing but a blank page... p00rleno 18:45, 18 June 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 no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Legislative systems

Template:Legislative systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This template links to only one legislative system ("the westminister system"), and for the rest it links to five national parliaments. Two months ago I asked on the talkpage if anyone could explain why the template exists, non-one reacted. I propose either deleting it or reorganizing it to a template:national parliament to encompass all national parliaments. C mon 07:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I dislike link templates; but the reason for the choices is clear. The Commonwealth parliaments do follow a common system; the others have all evolved separately. We do not need a template with links to every democratic legislature in the world. Septentrionalis 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Allows for the further creation of articles on other legislative systems. I doesn't seem intended to be a links to national parliaments (the Westminster System is not a national parliament. It is a system used in the UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and numerous other places). So creating a template for national parliament misses the point. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template is useless. It should link to articles related to legislative systems not to parliaments. Along with that, it is very incomplete and will probably become a source of disputes if kept. Afonso Silva 12:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll fix it. Whoever designed it got the links and definitions wrong. It is fixable. It doesn't need deleting, just fixing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, try to fix it. But it will remain incomplete. Afonso Silva 13:54, 17 June 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 withdrawn by nominator (Keep). SomeStranger(t) 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Delete, if the royal template has this functionality. But why not just redirect? Septentrionalis 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These boxes were created to end a bitter edit war over whether styles could be included at the opening of an article. The agreement was that they shouldn't by at the opening but should be in the article. As a compromise those arguing that styles should be up front, and those arguing that styles should never be used, agreed that styles should be kept in a special infobox like this one. The reason individual boxes in some instances were created was because a single master template caused problems, as the image had to be manually added in, leading to different users using different images on monarch pages and breaking up the uniformity that is at the heart of the design and content. Having one master template for individual countries allowed a uniformity to be kept, with all templates capable of being edited in one move, so avoiding different versions on, say, different Prussian kings' pages. This template is supposed to be used for all Prussian kings (as well as their previous titles), not just emperors post 1871, so allowing the evolution in titles to be seen with the addition of a new box where a monarch received a different title (as with Kings of Prussia becoming German Emperors also) with different accompanying styles. Putting everything in one box is unworkable where, as say with Austria-Hungary, there are far too many variants (Imperial Majesty, Majesty, Apostolic Majesty, and others) to be fitted into a single box. This box fits the criteria perfectly and is used as part of an agreement that ended an 8 month long edit war, so should be kept. I'm puzzled as to why there should be a problem with a form a box that is used in hundreds of articles on WP, and was approved with a 92% consensus. This is simply the standard Prussia version. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    What is this overall royal template of which he speaks? Septentrionalis 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    I feel like a really big idiot. I made a mistake about the general template. However, this template was only for three kings who were Emperors, when there is a template box just for them. I would like to now remove the image of the crown, replace it with the Hohenzollern Coat of Arms and implement this template for the non-imperial Kings of Prussia. The combined template for the German Emperors is totally sufficient and not overcrowded in itself as it only contains two titles a combined style. Again, sorry. Everyone makes mistakes :-( Charles 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw. I withdraw this nomination. Charles 01:48, 18 June 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.