October 31

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-sand/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Documentation subpage unused since the parent template was redirected in June. Anomie 18:54, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chattanooga Malls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly narrow template. Only navigates among three malls, all of which are already linked from Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belk history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only contains three other stores, all of which are already linked from Belk. All three conversions came within a year (and they didn't even take all of the Parisian stores), so this template doesn't really serve a purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 16:46, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recently convicted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, potential BLP problems. Not to mention that rapidly changing information is something that happens all the time in court cases. They're well known for being lightning fast. :) Conti| 15:26, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future mine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically unused (only used in one article). Conti| 15:24, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 result --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent video game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 2 articles right now, the corresponding category has already been deleted through CfD, not needed. We don't need to inform our viewers that articles might change (at least not with a big template at the top of an article). Conti| 15:21, 31 October 2008 (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.
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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on 3 articles currently, and rather pointless anyhow. Information does not change more rapidly just because these people are in space. The three articles that use this template have not been touched in almost two weeks. Conti| 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These templates are more or less "disclaimers", and provides no useful information to the reader. At least, this template is redundant and can be replaced with a more generic one. --Kildor (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are only three people linked to this template at the moment because that's how many people are currently in space, often there are more. The template has an important function as it adds pages to Category:People currently in space that needs to be kept up to date, a task which is much easier with the use of this template. Also, information can change rapidly when an astronaut is doing an EVA for example, or during launch, docking or re-entry. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information can change rapidly whenever something happens, that's just the nature of.. everything, really. We don't need to mention that unless it is very likely that information will change rapidly. Additionally, I don't see how this template helps in adding Category:People currently in space (which is a perfectly fine category, IMHO). The category can be added and removed just like any other category. This template doesn't make the task one bit easier (or harder, for what it's worth). --Conti| 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categories can be managed manually, more labor might be involved, but they can be maintained manually. --The Guy complain edits 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another temporal template that fails to add information that cannot be better stated in the lede of the article, and in the footnotes, indicating the recentness of the activity described. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (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.


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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created as a content fork, over a protracted dispute at Template:Sexual orientation. I don't think it is sufficiently different from the original template to be warranted, and there are other templates - template:sexual identities for instance - which cover the remaining ground. Ludwigs2 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge: This template obviously has a different attribution then Template:Sexual orientation, the current sexual orientation template has been set up to bar out not-so-common-or-traditional orientation labels that people choose to identify as, you can clearly see that on the talk page. This template i have created has to do with "sexual orientation labels", not sexual identities, which Ludwigs2 is trying to associate it with, those are two completely separate things, and Ludwigs2 should clearly know that, being a major contributer to the sexual orientation related content. Sexual identity has it own very distinct article which is completely different from sexual orientation, focusing on two completely different subjects. It is shameful that Ludwigs2 has stooped so low, trying to say they are the same when i know that he can clearly tell their contrasts. If you look through the talk archives you can clearly see his many attempts to falsify and construe data to promote his views, one time going so shallow and saying that people's personal choice to label their orientation as some other than heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual "goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation" [1] and that they do not deserve to be on the template. His statement is clearly false and contradicts the Sexual orientation article which states "some people may use different labels or none at all", which is a direct quote placed on the article from an source by the American Physiological Society. I believe it is wrong to discriminate equal access to be on this template which clearly tells people who label with different orientations are some how a second class citizen to traditional labels, didn't we already learn this during the civil rights movement that it is wrong to discriminate? The only options I see fit is to keep the template or remove this "ban" on Template:Sexual orientation that has been enforced by two user that appear to have a sense of article ownership and have clearly said in the past "only common oreinatation" can be used on the template. Because of their tag-team dictatorship i had to create a completely new template which does not biasly denny any sexual orientation label as Ludwigs2 has been succeeding to do on the sexual orientation template. Like i said, keep or remove this de facto ban on Template:Sexual orientation and merge it.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:POVFORK, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:Fringe. Even if written extremely well and sourced the additional articles that are featured here remain outside of the mainstream usages and understanding of sexual orientations. That could change, but one prime example, pomosexual - which has been regularly added and then removed from the main template that this is supplementing - is a borderline notable neologism which few people actually use as a self-identifier. I would place it with omnisexual or trisexual as unique and interesting terms that have never caught on to any mainstream acceptance or usage. This could change but hasn't yet. It would be more productive, IMHO, for Cooljuno411 to focus on an article about changing sexual identity labels, history, usages and implications. There are plenty of little used terms that could be nicely bundled together and be an informative and fascinating read. Creating this template and the ongoing issues at template talk:sexual orientation aren't helping in any case. I'd rather see successful building of durable content. There is a place for pomosexual et al but this isn't it. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Merge. I recognize this as entirely a FORK of Cooljuno's earlier efforts to include everything but kitchensinkophilia into the template:Sexual orientation, and being rebuffed by repeated arguments and consensus against. There is nothing here to Merge, and a Merge decision would result in everyone being forced to do the same dance yet again, an outcome I have confidence that Cooljuno would be eager to see. ThuranX (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2008 (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.