Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

[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. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK)

[edit]
Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is a copy of Template:Big Brother housemates. The only difference between the actual template and this template is users have modified this template to work exclusively with Big Brother 2008 (UK). This template is not needed as every function of this template can be done using Template:Big Brother housemates. All other articles in progress currently use Template:Big Brother housemates and Big Brother 2008 (UK) is no exception. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:59, 5 June 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.



Template:Bbblock

[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 keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for or how to request unblock. It is returned here from an extended DRV after parties indicated the prior 10 day TfD was insufficient notice. MBisanz talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has been widely used, though hard to track due to it being a template that is designed to be subst'd. I use this template all the time. The user warnings project is not policy, and many styles of templates exist. As for some of the nomination specifics: "The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for", the template clearly says that the block is "for vandalism of Wikipedia.". As for giving the templated person more information, it also contains links to the person placing the message, and the blocking policy. — xaosflux Talk 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there are no wiki links to what vandalism is at Wikipedia or how long they are blocked for. MBisanz talk 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the template, it now contains links to what wiki vandalism is, AND the current users's block log. — xaosflux Talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've kept several "non standard" template messages like this in the past (such as the older "test templates"). -- Ned Scott 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We should decrease the number of forks of blocking templates, as they should be as standardized as possible. And what does "bb" stand for? "Bad boy"? if so, then it should be speedy deleted. →AzaToth 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One might assume it stands for "blackbox block" according to the edit summary of the template creator, and in that it has the image of a black box on it. — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider for instance that you had been blocked for vandalism and you notice this template. Lets say you want to know more about Black box but you find it rather ambiguous. Is that the impression we want to give when using the template? A blocking template should be concise, to the point and informative. I don't get this when viewing the template. But thats just me. — MaggotSyn 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the name only appears misleading, I don't see a particular use for it when we have other block templates for this specific purpose. I agree we should standardize and there has to be a line in the sand "somewhere" so why not here? — MaggotSyn 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an established administrator wants a separate template, he/she can have one. There is no policy that specifies that standardized templating is required, thus there is no reason to do so. There are better things that need doing then worrying about templates like this one. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 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.

Template:Mo icon

[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 No consensus, possibly a weak keep. The fact that the languages are syntactically identical means that, when a source explicitly claims to be written in Moldovan, it would be original research to state otherwise. It is similarly unhelpful to weasel by noting, except where encyclopedically relevant (eg Moldovan language) the elephant in the room of the two languages differing only because politicians say they do. Any sensible person can, it appears, tell that the two languages are identical; the fact that a significant number of reliable sources claim otherwise is a notable phenomenon, which should be commented on encyclopedically. It is a shame that the template does not link to Moldovan language where this issue can be explained properly. The issue of which template to use when the source does not make it clear which 'language' it is written in is undoubtedly a nasty one, and is a legitimate cricism of the template; but such an issue cannot be decided at a TfD discussion. Happy‑melon 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mo icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this template should be deleted because language templates here should serve a linguistic and not a political purpose. I will not deny that Moldova, as per its constitution, declares that the Moldovan language is official there. However, from a linguistic point of view, that does not make Moldovan a separate language. While it's legitimate for us to have a "Moldovan language" article, it is not, I believe, our duty to accommodate that particular viewpoint by declaring certain documents, written in Romanian, to in fact be in Moldovan. If you don't take my word that the two languages are the same, here are some quotes to back me up (note that Moldovan is now written in the Latin script as well):

  • "The notion of 'Moldovan' language exists only politically and bears no more linguistic meaning than the 'Austrian' or 'American' languages". Maximilian Spinner, Civil War and Ethnic Conflict in Post-Soviet Moldova, p.5.
  • "The 'Moldovan' language is essentially Romanian, a Romance language, written in the Latin script until the Russians imposed their alphabet after taking over in 1940". Michael E. Brown, The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, p.113.
  • "The Moldovan language is Romanian". James Minahan, Miniature empires, p.276.
  • "To underscore the separateness between Romanians and Moldovans the Soviets mandated that the Moldovan language, indistinguishable in its spoken form from Romanian, be written in the Cyrillic alphabet". Bernard A. Cook, Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, p.296.
  • "The 1989 Moldovan language law made Moldovan (Romanian) the state language and restored the Latin alphabet". Alexei Arbatov, Russia and the West: The 21st Century Security Environment, p.133.
  • "Linguists in both countries agree that Romanian and Moldovan are essentially the same language". Tanja Schultz, Katrin Kirchhoff, Multilingual Speech Processing, p.7.

Again, I see this as a solely linguistic question; since the languages are the same, we should use only one template, while of course recognising in the relevant articles that Moldova calls the language by a different name.— Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete good proposal.--Flueras (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(user blocked as sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte) Khoikhoi 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it depends on where it's used. It might be useful if it was only used to identify text written in Cyrillic during the Communist era -- that would definitely serve a linguistic purpose (and it would be informative, e.g. if a document is written both in Cyrillic and in Latin characters then I'd like to know the distinction as to click on the [ro] icon instead of the [mo] icon). However, for text written in Latin characters it's superfluous, as it doesn't bring any information to the reader. --Gutza T T 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, or documents from Transnistria today. It's a good point you make - but in practice, the template is used only for Latin texts, and is ripe for revert wars and accusations of POV-pushing if we change it to Romanian. Maybe one solution would be to delete this and have a new (in Moldovan) template? Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- there's no way to differentiate between written "Moldovan" and Romanian, this term and template is used only to make a political point. No serious linguist accepts the idea that Moldovan is different than Romanian, however politicians did use the term, but by no means the term is used by everybody in Moldova to name the language they speak. As further proof even Moldovan declaration of independence called the official language "Romanian". AdrianTM (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This template is one of many that follow the format of {{languageicon}}. These templates use the ISO 639 Language codes, and ISO 639 has separate entries for Romanian and Moldavian (sp) languages. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is an ISO code, but nobody can tell them apart. How does one decide which icon to use? Given that, what's the logic of choosing one instead of the other, since the reader gathers no information from that choice? This is like trying to label text "NZ" vs. "AU", even assuming they did have ISO codes associated -- how could you tell which is which, and what information is being conveyed to the reader by the choice between the two templates? --Gutza TT 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to Gutza's point: if you look here, based on the fact that it's called "Moldavian" and written in Cyrillic, it becomes clear that the code refers to the Soviet-era and Transnistrian "language", not that used in Moldova today (which is Latin script). So I wouldn't have a problem if this template, or a (in Moldovan) one, were being used for Soviet and Transnistrian documents. What is a problem is that currently, it is being used for Latin script texts. And if I start replacing those usages with (in Romanian), I fear the start of more revert-warring, despite this being a technical, not a political issue. Biruitorul Talk 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the difference between them is political, I use it to choose the template: If the source explicitly says that it's in Moldovan then I use the mo icon template, otherwise default to ro icon. I understand that the usage of the term "Moldovan" is going to be governmentally enforced in autumn, therefore I believe that the usage of mo icon is justified, because Wikipedia can't tell governments which language name to use - it's usually the other way around. Now, the article Moldovan language, on the other hand, can explain that it's just another name, purely political etc. --Illythr (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A government can decree that another language exists (as has happened in Moldova), but if the languages are still the same, then it's not incumbent upon us to recognise the "new language" as being separate. I suppose the closest analogy would be Serbo-Croatian, but even there, the differences (perhaps exaggerated) between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are large enough to warrant an article - something that would not be possible for Moldovan (the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary aside). The point is: historians and linguists - the experts - consider the two to be the same, and while our article on the Moldovan language serves to point out the fact that it has another name in Moldova, I believe, for the reasons outlined above, that documents written in this language, acknowledged by experts to be the same as Romanian, should be labelled as such, particularly given the edit-warring possibilities. However, as I have stated, I would also be willing to use the "Moldovan" label for texts in Cyrillic. Biruitorul Talk 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Illythr, I can understand how you've reached this position, but I have below few thoughts about when it's wrong to use a political criterion on technical things, even if the criterion addresses them. adriatikus | talk 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Upon further consideration I tend to agree with Biruitorul -- as it stands, this template is calling for trouble (edit wars and endless debates on whether a particular source is RO or MD). It's easy to imagine a Moldovan author who becomes successful and moves to Romania -- or vice-versa, a successful Romanian author who moves back to his home town in Moldova -- think of the pointless edit warring ("he's not longer writing in Moldovan, since he lives in Romania" -- "nonsense, his style hasn't changed one bit, he's still writing in Moldovan", and so on). --Gutza T T 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, good point. :-) --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Saying a website that states is written in Moldovan is written in Romania would be original research, unacceptable for Wikipedia. When the language is not explicitely mentioned, we should use both language icons for Moldovan websites.Xasha (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reply is the first one written in Maka-maka language on this web page. Please ask and admin to warn or ban me for not using the English language when posting on WP. Thank you (the end of the Maka-maka language text) adriatikus | talk 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above, and the one below, show that supporters of deletion have no respect for Wikipedia policies, and all they want is to impose their personal view, even if that means violating WP:OR and WP:FORUM.Xasha (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about WP. It's about not losing common sense. As about you shifting to general guidelines (that's metadiscourse, my dear, dribbling argumentation) instead of giving a single objective counterargument, I suppose it means you have none. adriatikus | talk 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There was also an easier way to respond: your two rules are actually one, and it's about articles, not talk pages. But let's keep the subject in focus, don't we? adriatikus | talk 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: Oh, if you miss a ban, keep generalizing. adriatikus | talk 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template appears only in articles, so WP:OR applies. What you're doing here is also discouraged per WP:FORUM (read the "Discussion forum" part) and WP:SOAP.Xasha (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I'm right. BTW, you're only replying to post scriptum. adriatikus | talk 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, we are not talking about the colloquial spoken language, or the local varieties (we have no tags for Texan American English, or British English). So a Mo icon would be linked to the standard Moldovan language. The standard language in the Rep. of Moldova in regulated by the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, which not only calls the language Romanian, but it has addopted the orthographic rules of the standard Romanian language as they were published by the Romanian Academy [1]. This means that there wouldn't be a scientific criterion by which a text to be labeled Mo or Ro. Thus we have a language, called by linguists Romanian, and by the current government of Moldova Moldovan. I understand the right of every state to give what law it pleases, but if I go to Chişinău then it means that "by law" any valid sentence I would pronounce in Bucharest would automatically become spoken in another language. There may be some arguing that there are similar cases when the same thing, like e.g. a place name, is differently named in different languages. How is that thing named in WP? By its internationally recognized name. I think the world has nothing to do with the nightmares of the Moldovan Communists, nor their laws are automatically standards. So we have a thing, named by linguists Romanian language, and known as such by the world. Should we trust Voronin claims [2]? adriatikus | talk 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only reason that would sustain using Mo icon is the legislation of Moldova, let me propose a thought experiment: let's suppose we're back in time, about 70 years ago. What would be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jews who want to edit Germany related articles, since there was a law given by a democratically elected administration forbidding Jews the right to teach Arian children? There are 3 reasons I'm proposing this thought experiment:
  1. law systems are not absolute reference points by themselves; the law has to have a rational judgment supporting it;
  2. something absurd enforced (the 'Moldovan language' name seems to be enforced by law from autumn) by a government which is democratically elected automatically has its supporters - what I mean is truth and right judgment aren't matters to vote for;
  3. the situation resembles what's happening in Moldova: social/ethnic engineering by trying to "scientifically prove" and "enforce by law" a thesis that fits the rulers;
adriatikus | talk 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think what I say is not NPOV, then read this page from the Jamestown Foundation about the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies". No wonder they fit the above example, coincidentia oppositorum after all. adriatikus | talk 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mo Wikipedia is frozen. No one edits it. All editors from Moldova edit Romanian Wikipedia. Why? Because the words "Moldovan language" are a political manipulation only. Romanian language was simply renamed into Moldovan. By law. Yes, this real world issue was already decided: page full of proving quotations (with links). adriatikus | talk 06:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This template is used to identify words, Web sites, etc., in said language. As long as a group of people outside of Wikipedia identifies it as a language, this template should exist. – Zntrip 03:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you can "identify Moldovan language" just by reading a text. Because to identify is to establish the identity, which contains the characteristics one thing has and others don't. If you can't accomplish this simple task, to identify the language of this text: "Mama mea face plăcinte mai bune ca mama ta" (which is, Romanian or Moldovan?), then you don't have 2 different things, but 2 words naming the same thing. The Mo icon template is not an article, but an identifier, a technical tool in WP. It has to behave like a tool, to identify the language as it is universally known, not by its invented name. This is so simple, I can't understand why you (pl.) refuse to understand that objective facts of this world cannot be ruled by laws. Also, why is so hard to see it's wrong when an administration does that? adriatikus | talk 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Adriatikus' point: the idea is that a group of politicians, not a group of linguists, call it a language. The point of language templates, however, is to reflect acknowledged linguistic reality, not political purposes. Biruitorul Talk 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying that I doubt that “Moldovan” is in fact a different language from Romanian. But the reality is that there exists a whole country of people who speak and call Moldovan a language. Montenegrin, Belarusian, Macedonian, and many other so-called languages were not, and are still not, universally recognized by linguists. The reality is that languages and politics are deeply intertwined. Portuguese would never have been a language if the country were simply a province of Spain. Other languages, such as Turkish, were heavily constructed and reformed by nationalist governments. Whether you agree with it or not, Moldovan is identified by many as its own language, and that’s all we have to worry about. – Zntrip 22:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between those languages and the case here is that standard Moldovan is identical to standard Romanian. Yes, there were some minor dialectal differences between the language spoken in Chişinău and the one spoken in Bucharest, but the current standard language both in Romania and Moldova is based on the variety spoken in Bucharest. Macedonians, for instance, standardized their own local speech, unrelated to the language spoken in Sofia. bogdan (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when Wikipedia policies and personal feelings are opposite, the latter win, even for some administrators.Xasha (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, 3rd party independent experts from internationally recognized institutions cannot be called "personal feelings". I think you've already seen my collection of quotations from them. adriatikus | talk 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you to indicate not a full web page of opinions as I've did, but a single one internationally recognized independent expert claiming the opposite. Only one, supporting your views. Only one backing-up Moldova's communists. Can you find him? adriatikus | talk 11:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to bogdan’s last comment, I think you are stretching it. How would you know that the two are completely identical? Moldova is trying to distinguish its national language from Romanian, whether that’s wrong or right, or whether it is very similar is beside the point. The purpose of this template is to show that a Web site is in a language other than English. If that Web site claims that it is in Moldovan, than so be it. – Zntrip 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because if one is given two books, one published in Moldova (presumably written in "Moldovan") and one published in Romania (written in "Romanian"), it's not possible to tell which is which. Also, because the Moldovan school manual are named "Romanian language" rather than "Moldovan language", they study "Romanian literature", not "Moldovan literature" and some state institutions use "Romanian" rather than "Moldovan". bogdan (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know "Moldovan" is identical to Romanian because:
  1. the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, the regulating body of the language in the Rep. of Moldova, has adopted the same orthographic rules of the Romanian language, as they were established by the Romanian Academy, the relugaling body of the Romanian language. [3]
  2. because there are publishing houses in Mo and Ro selling books in both countries; the same with TV stations (no translation needed)
  3. because the editors from Moldova already edit the Romanian Wikipedia, without complain
  4. because in Moldovan schools the language is named Romanian, and they teach Romanian authors from Romania (from various regions), from 19th and 20th century, including Romanian writers in the last 50 years (when Mo was Soviet): Vasile Alecsandri, Mihai Eminescu, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Alexandru Macedonski, George Coşbuc, Lucian Blaga, Tudor Arghezi, Vasile Voiculescu, Nichita Stănescu, Ana Blandiana, Leonid Dimov, Emil Brumaru, Marin Sorescu, Şerban Foarţă, Ion Neculce, Petre Ispirescu, Ioan Slavici, Ion Creangă, Ion Luca Caragiale, Mihail Sadoveanu, George Călinescu, Costache Negruzzi, Marin Preda, Mateiu Caragiale, Ştefan Augustin Doinaş, Eugen Ionescu...etc, etc, etc, (Mo Education Ministry) Archived 2008-09-16 at the Wayback Machine
  5. because no interpreter was ever needed when Ro and Mo officials met
  6. because the EU, in lack of an official "Mo translator", used the Ro one, changing only the card identifying him (the story is really fun)
  7. because all 3rd party INDEPENDENT experts acknowledge it's the same language, the new name being used as a mean to artificially create a new nationality, this serving a group's political purposes: the last 50 years history as explained in quotes by experts and the current status explained here by the Jamestown Foundation, the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies".
  8. because you cannot name a single 3rd party independent scientist claiming the opposite
adriatikus | talk 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writen Moldovan is identical to written Romanian, and such icons should reflect linguistic realities, not political considerations . R O A M A T A A | msg  19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this deletion rather unusual: there is a whole country which speaks "moldovan language". There are several pairs wikipedias which are in close related languages: at least in norvegean and in belarussian. I understand there is a vociferous group which stands for (re-)unification if moldovan/romanian. But this does not change the fact that there exists just as important gruop which chose to see these languages different. Laudak (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the languages are identical, not similar - this Mo icon is a tool, not a WP article; how do we know some text is Mo and not Ro, when they are identical?
  2. as proven by independent analysts, the group is a political clique, not an important group; no internationally recognized 3rd party gives credit to the Mo official policy (see above); by contrary, the terms used are "Sovietization", "experiment", "artificially created language"
Again, we aren't talking about NPOV here, it's not about an article. We are talking about a tool in WP. It should identify a text following some criteria. What criteria do we choose when the languages are identical? Let's say we have some text about underware. Do we have to apply political criteria to label it as Mo (an artificial concept, see above), when we already have a name for that language? adriatikus | talk 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOR we say what the site says, whether is Mo, Ro or QoXasha (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if it says nothing? We need some criteria! This is the subject of this debate.
The situation regarding "Mo language" is exactly like the followings: Let's say some day, Mr. Bush passes a law saying the US don't use English, but American. He acknowledges the language is identical to English (the same Mr. Voronin, the President of Mo, did), but he says: It's our right to name the language we speak as we want (the same argument Voronin uses). OK, you'll say, and you'll write the WP article accordingly. But the question raised here is what would be the reasons when choosing to apply Am icon? Has Madonna changed the language by moving to Europe? What about when she's interviewed when in a transatlantic plane? This situation is identical to the one discussed here. adriatikus | talk 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More, I have screenshots of Mo governmental sites using both Mo and Ro as identifiers for the language. What would be then? Revert war? adriatikus | talk 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop making up things and let's start abiding by Wikipedia policies.Xasha (talk) 17:57, 19 June 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.

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

[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 keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Outside the scope of wikipedia, more than 10 articles are using it. →AzaToth 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_13#Template:Infobox_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted - Previous discussion have already said Keep and I affirm this. This is a spam TFD. As far as the number of articles, it just a matter of cataloging all the criminals that ever been on the list. Azatoth should take the initiative of doing this if there is too little "inclusion" and it says "Top Ten". There are only usually 10 people on the list and the template gets replaced once they are removed. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:00, 5 June 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.

Template:The Sextet Organization

[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 already speedy deleted by Werdna under criterion G6 (housekeeping) — Gavia immer (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Sextet Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No content whatsoever. In a series of pointless creations by user:Maxie martin Bit Lordy (talk) 11:39, 5 June 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.

Template:Needsinfobox

[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 Happy‑melon 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this back in 2004(!) for use in WikiProject Albums; it's now superseded by a parameter in the {{album}} template. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Needsinfobox shows only project and talk pages linked to it. — Catherine\talk 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comment: When using the needs-infobox parameter in {{WPBeatles}}, {{Needsinfobox}} is added under the banner instead of using one-line {{WPBannerMeta}} version. Sole example I could find is Talk:Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father. Not sure how to fix that. I've suggested a conversion at Template talk:WPBeatles. --Geniac (talk) 16:10, 6 June 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.

Template:Damaged

[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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discourages reparative edits and contradicts the spirit of being bold. If a prior revision of an article is in fact superior to its current revision, then that article should be reverted to the prior revision, not tagged. — Groupthink (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with flamethrower. MBisanz talk 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In the time it takes to add the template, you can usually revert any vandalism. The encouragement that this template uses should be focused on improving the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created this template after viewing the article on MOVE, in which several cycles of very severe deletions removed most of the content except what songs to buy. It was easier to tag this article than fix it, because there were several versions in the history with different interesting content, inline references were deleted before the rest of the content, and useful information was added after each of the large deletions. Moreover, the tag serves to identify a content dispute rather than solely serve as a reversion to a previous version - i.e. it is intended to allow someone reading the article to know that there's a good version in the history, hopefully without having to win a revert war with the person who deleted the information to start with. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Firstly, much better templates for dealing with disputed content already exist. Secondly, consensus, not templates, is supposed to determine whether or not a version of an article is "good". Tagging articles rather than fixing them might be easy, but it is also counter-productive. Thirdly, there are other, superior methods for dealing with "revert wars." Indeed, this template fuels rather than discourages edit warring by giving angry mastodons the means to make an end-run around discussion and consensus-building. The message of this template is: "I don't like the current version of this article, but rather than work to improve it, I'm just going to point out a previous version and call the whole thing 'damaged'." Do we really want to encourage such hit-and-run behavior? Groupthink (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template is all wrong. Fix the article if you can. If you can't, then the template doesn't help. It really reads like an editor throwing up his hands in disgust and inserting an official protest against an article within the article itself. You might as well blank the page, or insert a "this article sucks" template (though that, of course, would be vandalism and might require an aditional template to point out the fact). Meanwhile, end users who come to an article looking for information are not going to be pleased with a disclamer or qualification to explain why they can't get the information they want. The more templates there are like this, the more they make the whole of Wikipedia look bad. zadignose (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the purpose was to alert end users that they can get the information they want from the History. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which will inevitably prompt the end-user to inquire, "Why am I having to delve into archives? Why isn't this information in the article?" thus undermining Wikipedia's credibility. Forgive me if this is an obtuse question, but if there's information in an article's history supported by a valid source, why not just put that information into the article?!? Groupthink (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically seems like a way for someone unhappy with the consensus on an article to say 'this is m:The Wrong Version, click here to see the right one'. For obvious reasons, that's not an approach we should support. I understand this was created in good faith, but it seems that 99% of the time it will be badly used. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 7 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft

[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! 08:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This orphaned template, as far as I can tell only has had one article that it was placed on. The information it might convey is better stated in the lede and body of the article, hence the template is superfluous. Probably better suited as a category, not as a temporal template that takes up prime space at the top of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 03:34, 5 June 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.

Template:Ongoing event

[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 redirected to {{Current}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template substantially copies the functionality of {{current}}. It is orphaned. Basically superfluous. Tens or hundreds of thousands of ongoing events, activities and natural process have an article on wikipedia, from legislatures, campaigns for political office, the lives of all living persons, sessions of any legislative or diplomatic activity, wars, and on and on. Just about all of wikipedia that is about a living or active event would apply. This is unremarkable and does not need a template to say what should be in the lede or body of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 5 June 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.

Template:Current territorial changes

[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. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current territorial changes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An orphaned template for a fairly rare and slow-moving occurance: territorial changes of some governmental entity. Superfluous, as appropriate information can be placed in the text of the article in a suitable section without taking up a prime area at the head of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 5 June 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.

Template:Current football season

[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. Perhaps a change of image at {{current sport}} would be appropriate, but that is no excuse for this template creep. Happy‑melon 11:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was NOT to delete, obviously but whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.176.147 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Current football season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template substantially duplicates the fuctionality of {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}}. Another example of needless temporal template proliferation. In the last month or two, a number of other templates that copied the functionality of {{current sport}} have been reveiwed and deleted:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_19#Template:Current tennis tournament
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current sport delay
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current PW
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_29#Template:current motor sport

— Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template was created because the {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}} feature a soccer ball and clock icon which have nothing to do with American football. There's really nothing wrong with having different templates based on different sports.
  • I note that a changed graphic does not change the fuctionality of the template and its relationship with the source it was copied from, and {{current sport}} allows the editor to specify the logo, hence my assessement that this is a redundant template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template is redundant. If the icon of the current sport template is a problem, take it to its discussion page. --Kildor (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Logos are part of the function; that's why we include them. Do not confuse the reader by suggesting he's at the wrong article. Merger, with a logo index would be useful, but it should not be a precondition. (Renaming to American football would be harmless.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an argument for proliferation despite same fuctionality. An argument used as well for the former template "current motor sport" -- "logo doesn't work for this sport." I suggest the argument is unpersuasive, and note that {{current sport}} permits logo substitution by the editor. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:57, 11 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5&oldid=1169638866"