Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 19

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Primarily, I think WP:BEANS should be considered here. The vast majority of death threats made at Wikipedia are jokes (and this would just encourage more of them), and for those that are serious, this just calls unnecessary attention to them. Template:Indefblockeduser works fine as a template for these users, and if there's some reason that an admin needs to look into the specifics, edit histories and user contributions should suffice.. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The idea that WP:BEANS, which by the way is a pointless load of circular logic, should apply to this is nonsense. People don't need to be "given the idea" to make a death threat. Someone who makes a death threat is obviously pissed off enough, or intent enough on creating a disruption that they are going to do it anyway. Death threats are and should be considered VERY seriously, and just lumping them under another template with other shenanigans dismisses them. Besides, its going to be on record why a block happened anyway.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's going to be on record why a block happened anyway. {{indefblockeduser}} is adequate; no special recognition needs to be given to death threats. Gracenotes^T § 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gracenotes. JPG-GR (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to explain with a template the reason for a death threat block. Jmlk17 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gracenotes. –Pomte 07:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gracenotes. Pumpmeup 11:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary and potentially explosive. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & gracenotes; no need to point this out via template. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 25 December 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.

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Conflict Freepsace Craft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Besides the typo in the name (Freepsace.. FreeSpace), it is a template no article has been using for a long time. No current article likely to use it as well. Jappalang (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete we seem to have zero articles on such crafts. –Pomte 01:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete was WP:PROD attempted? --Thinboy00 @209, i.e. 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD only for articles D'OH. --Thinboy00 @214, i.e. 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nothing links to it, about 3 minutes of copying markup involved without any point - I doubt it will ever warrant existing Pumpmeup 11:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unused SkierRMH (talk) 03:30, 21 December 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.

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Way too arbitrary and list-ish for a template. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:International Centers of Commerce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An arbitrary list functioning as a free advert for Mastercard — Loodog (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete inappropriate, arbitrary and semi-commercial --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary links and tacit advertisement. Maralia (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but delete "Mastercard" name I think this template should be kept because it is the only one that tracks the top 10 cities for financial flow. If someone is interested in knowing where money goes, this template is pretty helpful. The only reason people are opposed to it is because of "Master Card worldwide" This can be changed to "ref" or something similar. Nikkul (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then make an article List of world cities by ranked by financial flow. I can't see the relationship between these cities as being relevant enough to warrant a navigation box.--Loodog (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your making the effort to modify it, but you seem to have overlooked that every person here also called it 'arbitrary'. It is not encyclopedic to slap templates on cities declaring them 'International Centers of Commerce' because one company calls them such. Further, the ten links included are arbitrarily taken from the source - they are not even representative of the top ten. Why have you included Mumbai despite its ranking at an unimpressive #45? Why did you remove five much higher ranked cities that were added by someone else to balance the information presented? You appear to have an agenda here. If you can source an article on international centers of commerce (without making it 'according to MasterCard'), it could be an appropriate category, but this is just too arbitrary as a navigational template. Maralia (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, the top 10 Business centers in 2007 ranked by MasterCard is "Hong Kong, London, Singapore, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Paris, Chicago, Amsterdam, Shanghai". Financial flow in a year is just a small indicator for judging leaders of "International Centers of Commerce". Joe3600 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's either a subjective, arbitrary list if we choose what goes in it, or it's a list chosen by MasterCard that has little recognition beyond their website (or so I assume). At the very least, a template like this should have some objective and understandable test for inclusion. "International Centers of Commerce" means nothing to readers. "Top 10 cities by GDP" or "Top 10 cities by population" would be examples of objective measurements that would mean something. --- RockMFR 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but delete "Mastercard" name. Useful template. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary list and the entries are of dubious connection to each other.--Loodog (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but delete "Mastercard" name. It is also subjective and arbitrary to say that these are not leading centres of commerce. Coloane (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Aside from this still not being an appropriate subject for a template, it continues to completely misrepresent the source.

• The new header title 'List of International Cities Ranked by Financial Flow' is not at all representative of the ranking methodology used by the source, as outlined extensively here. Financial flow was weighted at only 22% in their index calculations.
• You have arbitrarily chosen which cities you want to list. The ten cities you have listed have the following ranks on the source list: 1, 2, 4, 7, 3, 9, 8, 16, 25, 45. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an arbitrary collection of articles. This designation is one made by MasterCard, not one that has any kind of objective or official status. Terraxos (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom thanks Astuishin (talk) 22:09, 26 December 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.

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep, mark as depreciated and unprotect as template is no longer high-risk. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox begin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was previously nominated for deletion. The objection at the time was that there were many pages that needed to be converted to the new Taxobox template. This has now been done so the old 'Taxobox begin' template is no longer needed. — —Noah 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is still used on a variety of user pages and should at least be kept for historical reasons. No good reason to delete it, and deleting it does harm. --- RockMFR 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, maybe throw a namespace check thingymajig on it so that people know not to use it anymore. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Papillomavirus still uses it. It would help if the template itself mentions this inside <noinclude>. –Pomte 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark as redundant and remove edit protection (which is no longer warranted). While no mainspace pages now link to the template, I take the point that (so long as it's obvious that it shouldn't be used), there's no need to delete it. Verisimilus T 22:48, 22 December 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.

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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Completely inappropriate and unnecessary template. Contains a single link to the official Oh My Goddess Japanese site, and most of the rest are a bunch of fan sites full of copyright and fair use violations. A template is not needed to put in the single official link and the rest should not be linked to at all.. Collectonian (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The template is used to link to the relevant external link based on the passed parameter. It can link to multiple web sites so the assessment of the nominator is flawed. The default parameterless output is the official site so the nominator might have missed it. The official sites structure changes from time to time - especially between seasons. For example content on the official site is been moved to a sub folder as an archive making new room for the new season. That is how TBS maintains their site. Rather than updating multiple pages, template lets us update all relevant articles. Use of the template is well within Wikipedia:External links. It is frowned upon to remove a template before nominating it for deletion. -- Cat ^chi? 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  The template was removed because it was including links to multiple fan sites that contain illegal content and blatantly violate copyright laws (which goes against Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO and WP:EL policies. While your reasoning about the official site is a good one, that isn't the templates only purpose, nor does it appear to be its sole purpose when the main bulk of it is a bunch of options for inappropriate links. Collectonian (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly which links are violating US copyright laws? --- RockMFR 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  Both fan site links. Open Your Mind - on the whole not bad, but links to manga scans and links off to other sites with worse violations. Belldandy Angel Feathers - full manga chapters and scanslations, full episodes, and fansubs. I can't say if the OMG wiki has violations as the site is currently down with a database error. Collectonian (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  The linked pages contain extra information. This issue you talk about wont be addressed in 'Templates for deletion' as it is an editorial decision. The linked pages from the template do not contain manga chapters and instead information on the characters. I would welcome you to raise these concerns on the template talk page as I do not understand what the specific problem is. -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  The sites contain exactly what I said they contain. If you can not see why those are completely inappropriate links, I'd suggest reading up on US and Japanese copyright laws, as those sites violate both. While this is the English Wikipedia, it does not support stealing intellectual property from either country. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  Then take it to the templates talk page. Nothing is being stolen. Linked pages contain extra information on the characters - the purpose of external links. Have you checked the actual use in the articles? Is such a violation the case? No manga chapter is been linked directly. Copyrights is not an issue. US copyright law is not the issue at all. Japanese copyright law is binding in the US per Berne convention. I see nothing that is in violation of that. Linking to youtube isn't banned just because some videos there are copyvios. Linking to youtube is only a problem if the linked page itself is a copyvio. Consider one usage of the template: Belldandy#References. The top two links are from the template. One links to the official site and other to the Oh My Goddess wiki. -- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems those are conditional parameters, and are not included every time the template is transcluded. It's an unusual method, but at the same time the method doesn't seem problematic. I have no opinion on the links themselves. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Useless template to promote fan sites that per WP:EL probably shouldn't even belong to begin with.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - violates WP:EL. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Template contains a number of links to official sites, not just one, and is probably quite useful for keeping these links maintained. The reason given for deletion mostly centers on some links that host a large amount of copyrighted content. If these are a problem, remove them. Most of the links in the template look fine. --- RockMFR 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my above comment and RockMFR. While it might not be my cup of tea when it comes to handling ELs, I can't say that I'm bothered with it. If individual links need to be evaluated, then that's an easy fix. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Most of the links created via this template are likely inappropriate. The use of a template for this purpose is a bad idea as it creates an impediment to editing by editors unfamiliar with template syntax. That this has, in fact, already been a problem is evinced by the fact that some of the instances of this template have not been properly invoked. External links created by this template should be made using ordinary format and inappropriate links removed. --Jack Merridew 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  This kind of template use isn't uncommon. What are you talking about? I suppose we should remove infoboxes and templates in general as well if we are going to care that much about newbie difficulties. -- Cat ^chi? 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment am I missing something? What on Earth do you need a template for? Can't you just use [www.foo.com]? Unless of course you're trying to circumvent WP:EL. --Thinboy00 @212, i.e. 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  The structure of the source sites aren't 100% stable. For example the official site (in Japanese) has it's folder structure altered pretty much every season (it has changed twice so far). It is possible to fix it with a simple alteration to the URL. Also non-official external link sites sometimes die and need to be removed from articles. Template makes it easy to update. Right now (as of this post) the official site returns a 404 because the structure of the official site has changed very recently. I will correct this now. -- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  The reason why the template is necesary can be summarized by one diff [1] . -- Cat ^chi? 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  You still haven't answer the question of why the main site link of http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/ can't be used like with every other anime page? There is usually no need to link to a bunch of internal pages unless you are using the page itself as a reference (which can't use your template anyway). Collectonian (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  An external link should link to the page over the specific character not to the TBS in general. If the topic is Belldandy the external link should not link to http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/ and instead to http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/megami2/05chara/bell.html which used to be http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/05chara/bell.html (mind the lack of a "/megami2") before the site was restructured very recently. The key problem is that the structure of the site of TBS isn't very static. It takes me one edit to fix all external links after annual TBS megamisama site restructure if a template is used. This saves me a lot of time and makes sure I do not miss a single external link. I also use the template to link to semi-official sites that may contain more information on the topic such as the Oh My Goddess wiki. Such sites may end up disappearing, hence the use of the template. -- Cat ^chi? 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and get rid of any inappropriate links. At least pages of the official site should be linked to suit WP:EL. Linking to the main page of the official site from every article is unintuitive and has minimal navigational value. Having a template makes maintenance that much easier in case the site's URL format changes or people change their minds, which is exactly the case here. –Pomte 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is actually a neat use of templating, and gives Oh My Goddess external links consistency. --Phirazo 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin I created a documentation subpage (Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk/doc), so if the result is delete, that should go too. --Phirazo 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please check Template talk:Oh My Goddess Extlnk. Such a thing existed there. -- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I know, I created the doc page from that. I think the /doc format makes it easier to use. --Phirazo 20:07, 26 December 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.

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Philippine general election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not a single one of the people listed on this template has declared their candidacy for the 2010 election. It's pure speculation and original research. — TheCoffee (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice for recreation later. No one has declared intention of running now, so why should we say it for them? --Howard the Duck 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yep. Very premature. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' premature. Alternatively, we might "empty" the template and stick a note on it. It is probably gonna be recreated at a certain time regardless of this TfD, so why make 2 edits instead of 1. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom. Premature, pure speculation.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Howard the Duck. JPG-GR (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball per all. --Thinboy00 @215, i.e. 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that WP:SNOWBALL has nothing to do with this, right? The guide states that if something has no chance in passing, don't bother. This is the exact opposite of that clause.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom. I am currently starting the Mar Roxas for President in 2010 draft campaign but making a template is very premature. No one has yet declared but Sen. Dick Gordon had already declared his "intention" to run. -- Kevin Ray (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete - way too early! Pumpmeup 11:16, 20 December 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.