Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 3 April 5 >

Contents

[edit] April 4

[edit] Template:User Firefox3

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 userfy; all those who did not say userfy are hereby requested to read WP:GUS. Picaroon 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Firefox3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant template (given that there are only a limited number of free images for use in userboxes like this), and in the wrong namespace anyway. Further request salting, to prevent further copyvio use of the Mozilla Firefox image. Blast 05.04.07 0056 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant to {{User browser:Firefox logo}} {{User browser:Firefox text}} etc. Salting seems unnecessary for this particular name as a legitimate template could be created under it, and won't stop other templates from created or getting their images changed. –Pomte 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy User:Blast san/userboxes/User browser:Firefox logo is almost identical, with the exception that the link there does not point at the Firefox Homepage but Firefox's Wikipedia entry. Anyhow, to avoid toes being stubbed, let's just userfy this (sans Fair Use image of course). CharonX/talk 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Salting this template won't stop people from linking the Mozilla image on their user pages, it just means they would do it manually instead. The best way to resolve this would be to update the MediaWiki software so that images can be tagged as restricted to use in a certain namespace (or even certain specific articles). Anyway, this isn't a "copyvio," since Mozilla's license specifically allows use of this nature; it is just a violation of Wikipedia's own image use policy. 76.97.207.71 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm tired of readding the image and explaining why. — Darkest Hour 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepI like having the logo in the userbox,and it Mozilla seems pretty laid back.Salting is overboardUser:Serprex 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please avoid WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes. Still, Fair use images are not allowed in userspace, no matter what. I agree though that salting is going overboard. CharonX/talk 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually keep it because I put time and effort into it & I kinda like it. — Razorclaw 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please avoid WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes. Userfying it does not detract from it usefulness and if it keep those happy that in the past would have preferred to see userboxes gone entirely, I favor keeping our end of the bargain. CharonX/talk 01:58, 7 April 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 section.

[edit] Template:User Atheist2

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 userfy; all those who did not say userfy are hereby requested to read WP:GUS. Picaroon 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Atheist2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)


The cross through the word God is inflammatory. Delete or change the image. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose The image specifies exactly what atheism stands for. Please do not say that it is inflammatory or in any other way attack atheism... that will start a religious debate. To the strong atheists, a cross is inflammatory. Either all religious viewpoints and corresponding userboxes should be permitted, or the other alternative is to have no userboxes at all which are based on religious beliefs. Hirak 99 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but userfy - there's a clear precedent for allowing partisan userboxes, but they should generally be kept in userspace. The user who created this userbox should move it to their userspace. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed. --Hirak 99 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As already said by the user above that the image states exactly what atheism is and what it stands for. Hurricane Andrew 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:UBX. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This graphic is unacceptably provocative.Proabivouac 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong userfy - seems to be a book case of userfication. If many people are strongly for deleting it (although I'm not), suggest changing image, as a compromise. GracenotesT § 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:UBX. CharonX/talk 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong userfy - WP:NOT#CENSOR. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
  • Userfy image is accurate, does not suggest anti-religious attitude. –Pomte 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy; template and logo are not particularly offensive 76.97.207.71 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, as per the strong precedent set for all controversial and partisan userboxes. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Userfy - No reason for it to be in mainspace; no reason for it to be deleted. - Nellis 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Nellis. Acalamari 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - gesture to remove it is equally inflammatory Bl4h 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, per User:Hirak_99 — Celticshk Talk 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, per User:Blast_san — Razorclaw 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Strong Keep If this is deleted then ever use box that has a cross or any other religious symbology on it should also be deleted. --Greatestrowerever 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course they should be deleted - and when we try to delete them, this will be a precedent one way or another. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.Proabivouac 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete image which is very different from deleting all userboxes with crosses and religious symbols. Religious symbols don't feature crossed-out atheistic symbols or principles Pictureuploader 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: As per Hirak99, this image states exactly what athiesm stands for. When people display the God icon and say they beleive in it, why cant I say that I DONT believe in God? If my statement that there is no God is offensive to you, then so is your statement of belief in God offensive to me. And yes, if you say that my athiest image is inflammatory, well the Cross is also inflammatoryto me. If this template is deleted, I will userfy it and other people will too. --Matt57 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Religion-based userboxes are kept in userspace (see User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion for the list). WODUP 20:56, 7 April 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 section.

[edit] Template:CleanupMNSR

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, defaulting to keep. ^demon[omg plz] 07:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:CleanupMNSR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ridiculously specific cleanup tag. Maintenance nightmare see also

Feasibly replace all others with cleanup-usrd, but even so the danger is that we have as many "cleanup", "wikify" etc (there are over 200) tags as we have stub tags.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 4  April 2007 (GMT).
  • Delete all templates named above by the nominator. We really don't need a specific cleanup template for every state highway system. A cleanup template is a cleanup template. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace templates on linked-to pages with proper wikify/cleanup tags. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with {{cleanup}}. Do not support using {{Cleanup-usrd}} as it places too much emphasis on WikiProject standards. It appears this is the only WikiProject with cleanup templates, which are unnecessary. If a project-related article needs cleanup, tag it inside the banner on the talk page. –Pomte 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pomte. Suggest if project-specific templates are deemed necessary to create a generic template that accepts params for linking to state-specific roads wikiprojects instead of having multiple templates as above. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Specific project templates are not only beneficial but necessary for each WikiProject. The nomination of so many vital templates is ludicrous. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A further point to bring up is that we originally used stubs for this purpose. Problem is, the stub people complained about teh length of articles. We try a cleanup instead, and that gets TFD'ed. That's just not right. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Maintenance nightmare?! It's an nightmare if they get deleted! These templates, at least the ones seeing usage, help editors from each state see which articles need work at a glance and give a visual look at the current cleanup backlog. A nom as broad as this one, including templates with no or a couple of transclusions with ones with 30, is severely ill-advised. If you have an issue with one or a couple of the templates, make separate noms but don't make one this wide-reaching. Taking a different stroke, the generic Wikipedia cleanup templates don't work - no one ever checks those cats. A single USRD template doesn't work - who wants to comb through pages and pages of category just to find an article from Pennsylvania to clean up? Needless to say, keep all. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The USRD template could be adjusted to accept parameters that would place pages into more specific subcategories and provide project-specific instructions. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that's gonna have to take some very good coding, since every state names their state highways differently. For example, Massachusetts uses "Route x", California uses "State Route x", Texas uses "State Highway x", South Dakota uses "Highway x", Indiana uses "State Road x", and Michigan uses "M-x". Unless a solution is found for this, the templates cannot be consolidated.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all adding onto what TMF said, the generic cleanup templates stay tagged for practically infinite periods of time! Nobody really cleans the articles up that have those cleanup templates. In fact, as TMF said, no one ever checks those cats. With our USRD templates, the pages needing to clean up are organized in separate categories, broken up by state, which makes them easier to find. Even merging every state template into the nationwide USRD cleanup template won't work, since every project has different guidelines for structuring articles. The bottom line is that using our templates greatly benefits the welfare of USRD, so that we are and continue to be a well structured WikiProject with all kinds of support and conveniences for everyone to benefit from.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep those templates are there so we can fix every article from separate state highway systems. We can't rely on one template, every state needs its own cleanup template. Besides they're way too many highway articles and you guys think we can just rely one template, I don't think so. -- J-A10 T · C 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ratio of U.S. road articles to users interesting in improving said articles likely exceeds that of any other wiki-"project". But from my own experience I've found these editors extremely dedicated to their craft. As there are a finite number of national and state highway articles to be written, edited, and cleaned up, as opposed to a potentially infinite number of (for example) films or albums to be written about, the templates could be merged into one as there become fewer and fewer articles to clean up (rather than more and more, as would be the case when using a generic cleanup category -- they don't work worth a damn). —freak(talk) 03:04, Apr. 5, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, a cleanup tag for every state is pushing it and most of these tags are probably unnecessary. PSUMark2006's idea above for a generic template with parameters would probably be the best solution. However, a mass TfD like this isn't the right way to go about it, it would be better to discuss this at the WikiProject discussion and carefully plan out the consolidation of these templates rather than deleting them all outright. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Double Edit Conflict] Keep all. It will turn into a maintenance nightmare if all of these are deleted. Also, please re-read and listen to what Rschen7754 TMF, V60, and J-A10 have to say. --myselfalso 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all: the reason we have many stub templates is so that one can find a topic of interest and get to work. Same with these. Cleanup and stub expansion are similar activities – they're more likely to get done if someone with an interest in the articles can find them easier. The smaller resultant cats are more manageable as well. —Scott5114↗ 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all These cleanup templates categorize highways by system making it very useful for editors of those specific systems to know which article need work. Most highway editors don't work on highways from *all* systems but typically on only a few. Dumping all highway articles needing cleanup in a single category would result in an overcrowded category that will make it much less useful for sorting. We can try and work on creating a generic US Roads template with parameters but until that is fully in place, these should not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have retracted my delete !vote due to the dedication - if it's practical and gets the job done relatively quickly, I have no problem with it. A concern though may be the prominence of a WikiProject in mainspace. What about transcluding or categorizing on Talk pages, or creating a new cleanup-class of articles in Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality? A simple rephrasing on {{Cleanup-usrd}} (with the subcategory parameter) may be a compromise. –Pomte 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per TMF, JA10, freak, rschen, V60, polaron, Scott5114, myselfalso. Also - apparently its ok to have project specific templates as long as the project isn't USRD or its children?![/rant]. Please make sure you know how a template is being used before making the call to delete. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ludicrously strong keep. If there's any hope to getting these articles cleaned-up, a specific category is necessary. Simply tagging them with {{cleanup}} doesn't work, because no one ever puts the required discussion on the talk page. With these templates, the rationale is provided on the tag, and it immediately brings the article to the attention of the editors most likely to clean it up. -- NORTH talk 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The {{cleanup}} template is way to broad, in fact the template itself suggests that it be replaced with a more specific template in articles. I recently created such a template for the Roads in Maryland project because I felt it was necessary, we couldn't keep tagging long articles as stubs simply because they didn't adhere completely to the project standards. Also, there was no way I was going to use the generic cleanup template for them since, as I mentioned above, it is too broad. It wouldn't make sense to tag all stubs with {{stub}}, so I don't see why tagging all articles for cleanup with {{cleanup}} would make sense either.-Jeff (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All, too many times people arbitrarily add these tags without actually doing anything to improve the article or fix it. If it needs wikifying, then wikify it. If the exit list needs clean up, clean it up, or propose such on the talk list. Specifically with the exit list tag, no one ever posts on the talk page exactly what they see needs to be cleaned up. Delete and return to some actual editing. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment so your telling us that you don't care if they get lost in the shuffle? and assuming that we're not doing anything is a pretty bad assumption as it is. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not that I don't care if they get lost in the shuffle, but simply sticking a "Fix this" tag on something really doesn't do much. It's expecting someone else to come along and fix it. Like I stated, each time I've seen someone slap a cleanup tag on a road article I've created or worked on, no one has ever stated in the talk page what they see as needing to be fixed. Doesn't really help if people don't know what needs fixing. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you really need a post on the talk page to tell you how to fix it, then you probably shouldn't be the one to do the cleanup anyway, as most cases are fairly obvious. Take U.S. Route 60 in Arizona, for example. If you can't understand why it's been tagged for cleanup just by comparing the exit list to the exit list guide, then there's no point in attempting to explain it. Additionally, rationale is given in every template, so a post on the talk page is unnecessary. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
TMF, people cannot learn to not repeat their mistakes if they do not know what they have done wrong. Your example all I can see that may be wrong, In my opinion, is the use of white back ground for certain spans to differentiate them from the rest (if this is a problem, I can fix it), or that I did not list the exits of the route while multiplexed with other freeways (as once the route is multiplexed, the exit numbering for US60 ends). Perhaps this is too much to ask? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
People not knowing what to fix is exactly why these tags need to be kept. Unlike the regular {{cleanup}} tag, which tells you to post a message on the talk page (which no one ever does), these tags provide instructions on exactly what needs to be done. And as I mentioned before, they bring the article to the attention of editors most likely to do the cleanup, as opposed to regular cleanup tags which sit largely ignored for long periods of time. -- NORTH talk 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The point I was making is that if it is decided to be kept then they need to be used appropriately. Things like Wikify and such can be done by any editor, so why does it even need to be tagged? Exit lists I can see a possible need for tagging, as those are best left to people either familiar with the road or have really good sources. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Having separate cleanup tags for extremely specific (if not outright crufty) article topics seem a bit too excessive. The problem of editors sprinkling cleanup tags all over article space is not solved by creating more cleanup tags. Peter Isotalo 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To all people who say to delete, how do all of you explain Category:Cleanup from September 2005? There are a bunch of articles from 2005 to clean up, and as of right now, none have been cleaned up. The required discussion on the talk page is not there, and even though {{cleanup-because}} is used, it is sorted in the generic cat. Our U.S. Roads templates sort the articles in specific categories so that they are easy to find as well. We also have too many new users not adhering to the MOS (included is the USSH) and other guidelines, so these are definately needed.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment. Category:Cleanup templates for WikiProject U.S. Roads would need to be deleted if the these templates were deleted - it would serve no purpose. Again, I stress looking at what people within USRD say. I'm not saying that "outsiders" shouldn't have a say, but couldn't one think that if USRD is at a consensus about this, then why not go with what the WP wants? As well, I do think having one for each state might seem extreme, but when you are working in a project as huge as USRD, you might begin to understand - after all, ultimately, the project will have 50 subprojects (one for each state), and possibly some for the territories, if that's really necessary. Don't forget the District of Columbia, too. Though I am not sure if there are any city routes. --myselfalso 04:23, 12 April 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 section.

[edit] Template:Unicode 4.1 code chart

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unicode 4.1 code chart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template too large and clumsy. Not currently used; outdated content. ✉Hello World! 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unused and I can't imagine where it could possibly be used efficiently. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe this can be made into an article (as a list) if some context is added? GracenotesT § 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Such a list would be included in Wikibooks, not here. Many Unicode tables and lists have been transwikied before, including b:Unicode/Character_reference which has already served as a similar purpose. Nonetheless please note that Unicode 4.1 is an outdated version; the newest version is Unicode 5.0. --✉Hello World! 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki if Wikibooks needs it. The chart at ASCII is reasonable for having the relatively few characters that are used most commonly; this one is not. If an article included this unicode chart, it would be too much of a directory (though I don't like using this word, it seems to apply here). –Pomte 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; the Unicode Wikibook seems to cover all this content and more (though if I'm mistaken, change my vote to transwiki). Krimpet (talk/review) 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Krimpet.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per PSUMark2006. Acalamari 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete originally I wanted to create a new set of Unicode tables to replace the ones shown at {{Unicode chart All}}. The purposes of these new tables are twofold:
    • Have standard widths for each of the Unicode subset tables (aesthetic reasons)
    • Markup each of the non-displayable characters with placeholder names and colors—cyan for spaces and yellow for control characters
After this listing is done, the original intention was to split the code into each of the Templates in {{Unicode chart All}}.
Unfortunately the project started and I did not have the time to complete it, and since I'll probably not finish it anyway, it's best that you guys Delete it, unless someone else decides to pick up the baton and finish this Template. AstroNox 14:33, 9 April 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 section.

[edit] Template:SouthwestMinnesotaStateBasketballCoach

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. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:SouthwestMinnesotaStateBasketballCoach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Navbox filled with red links for coaches for a Division II basketball program who, by extension, would be inherently non-notable and not deserving of having an article created. — fuzzy510 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - it seems fruitless to navigate under one topic when an article about that topic doesn't exist. And, indeed, only one article within that topic exists. GracenotesT § 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gracenotes. Template is only relevant to one article, and those red links only potentially encourage creation of articles on non-notable topics. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gracenotes and WP:NOTE. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gracenotes. Acalamari 01:40, 6 April 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 section.

[edit] Template:Denton Texas

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. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Denton Texas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not used, not sure what it's use was for. — Joe I 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - not that useful. Perhaps we can apply WP:SNOW here. GracenotesT § 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no purpose... Abeg92contribs 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, artifact. Herostratus 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unfortunately it doesn't meet any speedy criteria, but it has no useful content whatsoever. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed. Acalamari 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it can be put on the article page with no ill effects — Razorclaw 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no use. —dima/talk/ 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per everyone else. —MJCdetroit 00:51, 8 April 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 section.

[edit] Beer external link templates

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:BeerAdvocate-beer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:BeerAdvocate-brewery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:Quaffale-brewery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:SPAM exists only to generate an external link. — DurovaCharge! 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: External link generated is a source for all pages in which template is transcluded. --Stlemur 10:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: If an external link is warranted, it can be added to the article directly. This template is used to promote link spam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: a lot of templates exist to generate an external link. The question here is whether the site in question is reliable and informative. GracenotesT § 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gracenotes: other templates generating external links are widely used and are accepted in the community and across multiple WikiProjects (c.f. {{imdb}}). These, on the other hand, despite being months old, have barely been used.
Also, note at Category:External link templates: "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...(1) Primary sources...(2) Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does...(3) Wikimedia sisterprojects. The only applicable criterion is #2, and seeing as BeerAdvocate is presently a redlink on WP, that hardly demonstrates its notability. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The count may have been done at an odd moment -- another recent count put the use of beeradvocate-brewery around 131, although beeradvocate-beer should probably go. quaffale-brewery isn't used much yet but mostly because not many people are writing articles about UK breweries. The current status of BA as a redlink is due to the article being recently speedied on very little notice by someone who was mmistaken in thinking it was spam. --Stlemur 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this is really multi-posting at its worst (or close), so I've combined these three nominations. Anyone can feel free to qualify if he or she thinks that some templates, but not others, merit keeping. GracenotesT § 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete site not reliable.Mikebe 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a link that establishes notability for BeerAdvocate, though I'm not sure about reliability. There's an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Beer. –Pomte 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete sites fail for a large part WP:EL, and I now see that even reliability is questioned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 6 April 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 section.