Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 July 16)
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

edit

Wikia besed and other template

edit
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! 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{Bulbapedia}} only contains a link directly to their main page pretending its a Wikimedia-related project. {{Bulbadex}} does the same job presenting that wiki as a standard reference. Smells spam to me. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure spam. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As is often the case with multiple-listing TFDs, there's an issue here, as this actually targets two very different sorts of templates. In the interests of fairness, I am delisting the 24, and KyleXY ones. This issue has already recently been considered in three TfDs, beginning with Template:FreeContentMeta, which was used to create the KyleXY and 24 ones. Subsequently, Template:HarryPotterWiki and, I believe, Template:Wookieepedia Box were nominated for deletion. In all three cases, the templates survived deletion. No new information or arguments are being provided in this TfD, making it a case of asking the other parent. That is not to argue that these templates are immune from re-nomination, but it is misleading to lump them in with other templates when their parent template and substantively identical templates have survived deletion in recent memory. For this to be done by what is obviously an account designed specifically to nominate these articles for AfD (since these were the user's first logged-in edit) is not a valid use of our deletion process. Phil Sandifer 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bulbapedia is not a free content project by Wikipedia's definition (It uses a non-commercial license). Wikivid would be appropriate if it existed (As it's hosted by Wikiversity), but it doesn't. Phil Sandifer 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that search page is part of Wikiversity, which is a Wikimedia project like Wikibooks, which we do interwiki to regularly. The only problem is, nothing seems to come up from Wikivid. Phil Sandifer 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the hell does "besed" mean? Chris Buckey 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see how the Bulbapedia template can be considered spam; they didn't attempt to sell anything to me, and the site provides what it claims to provide with no apparent deception. Link spam is inserted places where its largely irrelevant, masquerading as something it isn't. Oh, they certainly aren't doing anything to attempt to bypass adblock either. Zaphraud 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see Bulbapedia as spam. Often cases they have more information on different parts of pokemon then you do of that part. Like leveling up, tms, etc. It's not spam in any way, to me. 15:27, 23 July 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.

Template:The CW Delaware

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The CW Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unused state template for a network with no affiliates licensed in or based in the state itself (in this case, The CW). The one station that would best fit in this template – WMDT-DT2/"WBD" – is actually based in Salisbury, Maryland, not in Delaware. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:MNTV Delaware

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MNTV Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unused state template for a network with no affiliates licensed in or based in the state itself (in this case, MyNetworkTV). The stations on the template are respectively based in Philadelphia and Baltimore – neither city is actually in Delaware. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:UPN Maine

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UPN Maine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unused state template for the now-defunct UPN network. As before, we don't have templates for networks that have ceased to exist. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:UPN Massachusetts

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UPN Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unused state template for the now-defunct UPN network. As before, we don't have templates for networks that have ceased to exist. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:Unencyclopedic

edit
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. There doesn't seem to be any particularly dominating arguments on either side. I would be a lot more convinced about it being useful if it were actually used to a significant degree, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus for deletion here either. IronGargoyle 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been nominated for deletion twice before (keep, March 2007; and "no consensus", 2006). These earlier discussions are linked from Template talk:Unencyclopedic. The dispute seems to revolve around a basic problem. Inclusionists find it useful to have a template which recommends deletion without actually starting a deletion process. Deletionists say there's no need for such a provisional deletion template, and if the purpose is to suggest cleanup, a more specific template would work better.

I am nominating this template for a third time in order to suggest an option that has not yet been considered. Having listed several hundred pages for deletion in the last months, I can tell you that I have no need for this template. Either I wish to send the page to a deletion discussion, or I don't. This template hovers in the netherworld of ambiguity. At the same time, some users (mostly new users) will instinctively type "unencyclopedic" if they see something that bothers them.

I think the solution is to redirect the template to a cleanup template. My opening bid for a target is Template:Inappropriate tone. It's unclear what "unencyclopedic means", but "inappropriate tone" is a good approximation in most cases. I understand that this does not match the text of the template as currently used. I don't care much about that.

A search of "what links here" reveals many transclusions on non-mainspace pages, but almost no transclusions on articles. This is as it should be. The purpose of a cleanup template is to recommend cleanup, not to recommend deletion. (I feel this way even about Template:Notability, which is sometimes a first step in the path to deletion.) The "unencyclopedic" template should be no exception. — Shalom Hello 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep the last NFD was less than 4 months ago, that alone should qualify for a speedy keep. I for one fail to see the relationship between “Inappropriate tone” and “Unencyclopedic”, so I don’t see how one would replace the other. The same goes for replacing “Unencyclopedic” with any other cleanup template. Brimba 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think its a poor choice of template to use, for it give no specific reason & is thus of little help to anyone wanting to either delete or improve the article It is used at the moment on only one article, which is at AfD and almost certain to be deleted. We've learned a good deal about clean-up methods in the last few months. DGG (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this going to start a focused debate? {{dicdef}}, {{unsourced}}, etc, should start a debate or cleanup effort, but {{unencyclopedic}} is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Argyriou (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It focuses the debate on whether the subject is approprite to an encyclopedia, a question to which sourcing, for example, is irrelevant. DES (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of a single situation where there isn't going to be a more appropriate template to use instead of this rather confusing and ambiguous "catch-all". I can see this being being slapped on any article for any reason, instead of a more correct and to the point template, which is not at all helpful to anyone. Miremare 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've run into several situations where there was a need to differentiate between accuracy of content and appropriateness of topic, this template provides a clear and formal way of explaining things that people tend to take notice of more than they do a message written by a user telling them the exact same thing. -perfectblue 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep its an attention grabber. There aren't that many pages with this template on them. Lord Sesshomaru 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have {{prod}} for a reason. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unspecific. Tag-it-and-go does not help the next person to view the tag (in this case). Issues of scope are handled by deletion debates. GracenotesT § 05:49, 23 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:Seriously

edit
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 seriously delete. A redirect might work, but I don't think {{uw-blp1}} is the right target. IronGargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template could be redirected into {{subst:uw-blp1}} and that series as it sort of blends in with the removing of unsourced and libel material, this template seems unnecessary. Rlest 19:58, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:Wallaby characters

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wallaby characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of the character articles have been merged into the main article, and the template is both no longer in use nor has any use. — Quasirandom 17:21, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:Terrorism in Iraq

edit
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. IronGargoyle 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Terrorism in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template doesn't look useful. It is very unclear at its scope and there are better templates already providing the task its title implies such as Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism. -- Cat chi? 11:27, 16 July 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.

Template:Green line

edit
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. IronGargoyle 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...or more specifically Green line, Red line, Blue line, and Tvärbanan. There are articles about the Stockholm Metro and Tvärbanan, but virtually no articles about the individual stations listed in the templates. All these links are either red, lead to substubs containing only the template (Hässelby Gård, Danderyds sjukhus, Duvbo, Alvik), to disamigs (Trekanten, Linde, Luma), to articles containing no information about the metro (Gamla stan, Skogskyrkogården, Stockholm Olympic Stadium), or are hardly used (Tvärbanan). In addition, most of these stations (especially the red links) are little more than simple concrete structures located in remote suburbs and hardly of any notability (I did drive the metro for ten years, so I actually visited most of these stations at countless occasions). Exceptions to this description are the stations along the blue line where each station at least has a stub. However, I see no point in keeping this template while scrapping the others. I therefore suggest these templates should be deleted or, if they somehow are considered worth keeping, used only in articles directly related to the Public transport in Stockholm. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered Template:Pendeltåg which I think can be added to the deletion proposal above.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest writing and/or expanding the articles instead. // Liftarn
Comment: Yes, replacing these templates with links to a list is a good idea. I wrote a hundred or so articles about streets and squares in Gamla stan adding such a link to each of them. Some of these articles are stubs and a template would have given them undue weight. The same should be the case with these railway stubs. I don't see a point in producing the articles proposed by the templates just to save the templates. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, they don't. Most of them are only a brief section in an article about a suburb. Whenever there are articles about these stations on the Swedish Wikipedia, they are typically named [[Name (metro station)]]. As there are virtually no articles about these stations on the English Wikipedia, I see absolutely no point in having templates for them. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment contrast Medborgarplatsen versus Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport_(Washington_Metro) ... in my view the latter article looks better as the lines are connected to their next stations in each direction. That is a lot of work (each article takes different parameters to the line template) compared to just listing them all in a template at the bottom but it's better. Many US metro/subway/streetcar/passenger rail lines are done this way and it's quite useful I feel. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, s-line templates are more useful for context (and less confusing). A large list, as suggested by Tualha, may be useful to visualize an entire line. There is not the general space limitation of a template. GracenotesT § 05:52, 23 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:FOX Delaware

edit
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. IronGargoyle 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOX Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is pointless as there are no FOX affiliates licensed in Delaware. This is the reason FOX New Jersey was deleted. — KansasCity 07:10, 16 July 2007 (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 section.

Template:USAMarketingcycle

edit
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 both. IronGargoyle 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USAMarketingcycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) &
Template:Marketingcycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Amerocentric original research! 86.12.249.63 17:17, 16 July 2007 (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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16&oldid=1144970581"