Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3, 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 wasdelete Circeus

Template:Peru infobox

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, waste of space. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 wasno consensus, kept Circeus

Template:Unbalanced

Comment - If this template is deleted, please will the closing admin go to User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy and subst: the template there before they delete it so it is not entirely lost. Thanks you. -- infinity0 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered by the Template:POV. If an article is too one side, that's when you put up the POV template. "Unbalanced" is vague enough that the creator of the tag had to link that term to the article explaining NPOV. So, obviously it's a superfluous tag. RJII 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{POV}} and {{SectPOV}}. This template is better written, more polite, and better thought-out than those old POV templates. The tipped scales are a more appropriate graphic than the start stop-sign/palm. --James S. 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it that this is a vote to Keep this and merge them? Septentrionalis 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meant for the specific problem of Unbalanced citations. -- infinity0 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intended to address a specific problem: that of unreasonable selection of sources. I also agree that the PoV templates could stand being rewritten in this style. Septentrionalis 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this template adds a lot more clarity than the POV template. Kukini 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do any of you realize that the template itself is POV? It asserts that the article is "unbalanced." And, again, "unbalanced" is too vague. RJII 06:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was swayed by RJII's simple and elegant argument. --Mboverload 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJII. The template is delves in ambiguity. --Andy123(talk) 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider reworking this and POV I have seen at least three levels of POV problems, each of which should have its own template. Yes, RJII is correct that an opinion about whether an article is NPOV, or its status under any other policy is a point of view. Meta discussions are not, SFAIK, subject to NPOV, merely to consensus, or a supermajority vote if no true consensus can be achieved. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. One side of a controversy is simply neglected, or simply under-sourced. The tipped scales seem an appropriate graphic and avoid WP:BITE if it is just a newbie who thinks that this is an adversarial forum.
2. The article pushes a particular POV. The stop sign may be appropriate here.
3. There is serious and continued controversy about NPOV for the article. I am not sure what is appropriate there.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 wasdelete Circeus

More nav templates

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 wasdelete Circeus

Template:Panama infobox

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Prodego (author request) --William Allen Simpson

Template:Bad winner

Speedy -- requested by only contributor. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 wasspeedy delete' Circeus

Template:Badminton open

Speedy -- requested by only contributor. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 wasUserfy Circeus

Template:Mountain infobox

Template:Mountain infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like it was created as a replacement for the various Mtnbox templates, but was never actually put in use. Redundant to Template:Infobox Mountain. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This was an attempt to implement optional parameters in a template but unable to get it to work correctly. The existing mountain box templates now in use are the alternative solution (optional parameters would have been better). Please move it under my user space so I can keep it for reference in case we can ever get this to work. Thanks. RedWolf 18:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.