Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 April 7)
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7, 2006 edit

Template:Security protocol 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 keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not helpful and huge, see infoboxes considered harmful below WP:LEAD. -- Omniplex 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, {{subst:tfd2|Security protocol|reason}} is broken, it outputs reason as <br />{{text|}}
  • Keep The proposal for deletion contains statements about the security protocols that show a limited understanding of the topic. --Gorgonzilla 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename {{Internet security protocols}} — The template itself shows a limited understanding of the topic. Where are the PPP authentication and encryption protocols? What in the world is the "signalling layer" and why wouldn't key management be there, instead of "above" applications? And I deeply resent deletion of templates (for example, from PPP) based on a non-consensus non-guideline non-policy on a talk page. --William Allen Simpson 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per User:William Allen Simpson --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename. Agree with WAS re: !c!g!p on tps. +sj + 16:49, 10 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.

Template:WBC 2006 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WBC 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Not used, and I don't see a whole lot of potential for it either. --Sherool (talk) 22:33, 7 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.

Template:World War I infobox 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World War I infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-article templates are not particularly useful, especially when they merely call another template ({{Infobox Military Conflict}}, in this case). Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Kirill Lokshin. Can be substituted by the dependent infobox. Shawnc 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill. SoLando (Talk) 23:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've replaced it with the military conflict infobox in the article. Afonso Silva 19:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of size and excess. They should help, not overwhelm the articles they appear in.
  • Delete per Kirill. --Terence Ong 13:08, 12 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.

Template:R with possibilities 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 keep. Please discuss rename proposals at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, WP:RM, and WP:VPR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R with possibilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suggested renaming (NOT deletion): It was suggested here that the template's name is strange and not precise (the template is used to categorize redirects). Some proposed new names include "R subtopic", "R from subtopic" and "R from related topic". Shawnc 18:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia:Redirects with possibilities and Category:Redirects with possibilities are related pages.

  • Keep I use it all the time, I think its imprecision is a big plus. Although I do misspell it half the time. Ewlyahoocom 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be used more often by others if it had a different title? The template is listed under Wikipedia:Redirect for the usage of "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text", but several editors and I were initially not sure what "R with possibilities" refer to. Shawnc 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This themplate can be used as a placeholder to link things to until someone has written an article on the topic. Ae-a 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, though the proposition was not deletion but rather renaming to a more intuitive title. Shawnc 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there's a difference between the two. R with possibilities implies that the redirect has the potential to grow into an article, whereas R from subtopic implies that the redirect should never become an article of it's own.
        • That meaning might not be very clear to new editors from just looking at its name. Feedbacks from editors so far include "I'd like to change this tag to be a more precise and better understood "R subtopic".", "I also think the title of the template is very strange," "Perhaps renaming to the subtopic title will lead more people to use the template more narrowly". The text of the template has also been considered unclear: "What does that explanation mean, anyway? Does this actually make sense to anyone?". Shawnc 02:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some R templates are odd, and adding R from navcat plus R to documentation wasn't my best idea for Wikipedia so far, but always using R unprintworthy isn't better (look at its huge category). The R categories might be a future cleanup project. -- Omniplex 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. used frequently at WP:WSS when a redirect with a specific name is used because a stub category isn't yet ready to split (for instance Jamaica-geo-stub currently redirects to caribbean-geo-stub becuase there arent quite enough Jamaican geography stubs to warrant a seperate category). very useful. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usefulness of the template is not in question here, but rather its naming convention. If it's used on stubs, why not use, say, "R from stub"? Shawnc 02:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME as suggested to {{R subtopic}}. The suggestion is to rename the template, not to delete it. All the uses listed above fit with this new name better than the current ("possibilites") name. I did suggest this name some time ago. Thanks for reviving the idea. —Pengo 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  1. That redirection back to this template was instated by you shortly before this discussion. Shawnc
  2. That is not directly relevant to whether its name is actually intuitive or informative to editors. Out of all templates listed under Wikipedia:Redirect, I found only one other template which uses this category, Template:R to decade, and it also seems like a "R from subtopic" to me. Shawnc
  3. Its usefulness is, agian, not under debate. Shawnc
  4. The naming convention of this template has not been formally discussed here. You are instead referring to the previous discussion over its deletion, which is not the same issue as this. Shawnc 04:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The move was done only after several editors had raised their concerns over the naming. There had been no objection to the proposed renaming on the discussion page, where you had not previously voiced your concerns. Given the apparent concensus there at the time, the move was meant to be bold. Shawnc
All redirects for which I am credited here are due to unravelling the various moves perpetrated by Shawnc. {{R to decade}} is not a "subtopic". The previous TfD concerned the naming convention of all these related templates as a group. The "several editors" had discussed the naming convention at the time of the TfD, and that was half a year ago. Shawnc stumbled upon an old debate that went nowhere. "Be bold in updating articles" does not apply to categories and templates (where that would be highly disruptive). That's why there is this process. --William Allen Simpson 11:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a year may be construed as a special instance of a broader topic, its decade. The name "R with possibilities" does not clearly express such a connection, I find. Even if "subtopic" was not suitable, other names could be used, such as "R from related stub". Would that be less clear or functional than the current name?
To illustrate the focus of the previous TfD: "Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose." (by its nominator) That was therefore about deletion, not naming. In addition, this template was listed in the TfD among other templates, lessening the focus over its name. The only discussion over this naming seems to have taken place in its discussion page and in the Village pump in Oct. 2005, two months after the date of the TfD. I can not access the discussion at Village pump, but the editors in the template discussions were in agreement, so I would say that the discussion did go somewhere.
The WP:BOLD page does not currently mention "category" or "template", but perhaps you can propose an update to it? I have personally categorized and re-categorized the majority of martial arts-related articles on Wikipedia, for which I have received a Barnstar and positive feedback from WikiProject. If my edits here have been an inconvenience, I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm here in good faith, having put up this notice on behalf of those who may desire a more readable template. It was suggested above that some R templates are odd and might require cleanup -- why not start with this one? Unless, of course, the editors on the discussion page have merely been a vocal minority. Shawnc 14:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — All correct uses I've seen of "possibilities" are for subtopics. If there are other cases, these should be delt with case by case (or perhaps these rare, exceptional cases can get another template for "related topic"). It is not desirable to combine "subtopic" and the rare "other possibilities/related topic". Regarding "possiblities" emphasising that subtopics may be turned into their own articles: a comment to stress that should be placed in the template itself where it is seen my the reader (so it doesn't need tbe very vague "possibilities" to be in the template name itself.) (Note about missing "from": my original suggestion was to remove all the "to" "from" and "with" words from all the R template names because they are inconsistant and don't help, but removing these words should be considered separately to this proposal.) Note also that this issue was NOT "all thrashed out last year", and there was very little debate or reason not to change the name. —Pengo 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about the "correct" uses (or even whether such a thing is possible). The generality of the template is "by design". We really don't need dozens of extremely specific templates instead of a few general cases. AFAICT, the proposal to remove "from", "to", et alia was not adopted. --William Allen Simpson 11:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful template for marking which redirects should NOT be bypassed, because they probably have the potential to become full articles at a later date. Also, redirects resulting from a merge (for example, a biography of a guitarist is merged into the article about the one band that he played in) should be tagged as {{R with possibilities}}, because it might be unmerged later if he has a successful solo career. In a case like that, we would hope that all the pages originally linking to him still do, but often they won't, due to overzealous bypassing of redirects. That's what this template is really for. Also, do not rename. Let's rid ourselves of the "subtopic" concept, as Wikipedia doesn't work that way, if it did we'd be wading around in pools of unworkable crap. Thank you. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • The Wikipedia:Redirect guideline currently refers to "subtopics" directly; Template:R with possibilities is used as a synonym of "Sub-topic redirects", as in the statement: "Sub-topic redirects are often temporary, eventually being replaced by fully fledged articles on the sub-topic in question." If you don't like the term "subtopic" on that page, perhaps you may wish to modify the following text: "What do we use redirects for? Reason: Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text. Tag: {{R with possibilities}}" Or if you are ok with that description, then my question is how would "R from subtopic" or "R from related topic" differ from the literal description? Shawnc 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to any of the suggested names with subtopic: why not be clear in the name? (As to some of the comments here. I understand, there might be other good uses of the template which don't fit under the subtopic label, but I don't like the current situation when the usage "rules" are a kind of implicit knowledge of several individuals. I'd like the simple-minded name more.)--Imz 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe "Reason: Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text" can be matched with a new template such as "R subtopic"? Shawnc 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's not short, memorable and easy to type many people (well, me at least) won't use it. The only thing I don't like about "R with possibilities" is its almost too hard to type. Ewlyahoocom 15:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another poster has also mentioned that he often misspells "R with possibilities". Can we have a shortcut redirection to this template? Shawnc 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R with possibilities}}; the title of the template implies something about the notability of the topic which most options discussed above would discard. It is true that most applications of the template fall into the category of "R from related topic" but migration to a name based on that removes the implication that the Redirect has the potential to be an article in its own right. "R from subtopic" is not appropriate because this implies that the target is a topic of larger scope than the redirect, which is not by any means always the case. Retention of this template as currently named helps to reduce the proliferation of sub-stubs, which would in many cases end up at articles-for-deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about having "R with possibilities" as a parent category of more specific subcategories such as "R from subtopic" or "R from related topic", retaining the connection and providing additional options? (I'd like to emphasize that "subtopics or closely related topics" are still explicitly mentioned on Wikipedia:Redirect as the sole purposes of this template.) Shawnc 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I can see the logic in your proposal, but I don't support it for two reasons. First, I don't like the idea of having multiple levels of Redirect-related categories; that's a stylistic thing. Second, whether something is a subtopic or a related topic can be a statement that is time dependent. Articles do change over time, sometimes drastically. A subtopic relationship can quickly change to a related topic relationship if the target of the redirect was a stub article (I think about 30% of all articles are stubs right now) or short article itself. I can sympathize with the desire to decrease ambiguity, but I think in this case it is justifiable. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't rename: is District of Columbia a subtopic of Washington, D.C. or DNA ladder a subtopic of DNA electrophoresis (those are from the first 10 or so linking to the template)? I could see "R from related topic", but the current name better describes the purpose of the template. TimBentley (talk) 04:08, 13 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.

Template:No Crusade 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 speedy delete with even greater prejudice, as a polemical/divisive/inflammatory/etc. template (WP:CSD#T1). — Apr. 7, '06 [17:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Template:No Crusade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template tends to express prejudice towards those who've already contributed to a given article. This is clearly evidenced alone by its name "No Crusade". Netscott 16:47, 7 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 delete Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Srigranth edit

Template:Srigranth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is against WP:MoS and is not useful for Wikipedia. The effects of this can be judged from here Nimrata. I believe that it should be speedied and corrected --Andy123(talk) 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template has an external link as well. --Andy123(talk) 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Doesn't seem to be against WP:MoS to me. ZoFreX 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on IRC I'm changing to Delete, as this template links to an external site, and without that link, is pointless. ZoFreX 06:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has the external link as mentioned above. GizzaChat © 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The SGGS is in the Public domain, so there should be no reason to link outside Wikipedia. Maybe we can add it to wiki source? (Although we have to wait for a few issues to be sorted out with Unicode support). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukh (talk • contribs)
  • Delete -- the template serves little purpose, as quotes are supposed to be in kept in Wikiquote. Linking to an external site is nothing but blatant promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:27, 10 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 delete Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Corruption edit

Template:Culture of Corruption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Inherently POV name. BD2412 T 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename There are strong links between all these scandals, unfortunately the only name to surface so far is the label the Democrats have proposed. It is getting play in certain media outlets (CNN), currently running with a question mark. Since its a template the actual name is not really relevant, it can be retitled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs)
    • Well, the only really significant link between all of these scandals is that they all involve Republicans, but other than that? Granted, Bush is directly implicated in Plame and in Abramoff, but MZM only involves Cunningham and Harris at this point. The "Culture of Corruption" label sticks because Dems are seeking to tie all these together, but that's covered in the Culture of Corruption article. BD2412 T 04:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak delete Anywhere else, I would cheer something like this on because I have a horrible distaste for the Bush administration. However, when I came to wikipedia I promised to leave that behind. If someone can show that it really is useful I will change my vote to rename. --Mboverload 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template. What does it add besides POV to the article? Dan 02:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move contents to Category:Republican Party controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since some of these are Party corruption issues) and/or Category:George W. Bush administration controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (where specific to the administration). --William Allen Simpson 11:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy under WP:CSD#T1. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Rename per Gorgonzilla. The template idea seems worthwhile and useful for pulling together a lot of information, but it also seems POV. I think Halliburton and no-bid contracts in general could get included. To a weaker extent, Enron and the secret Cheney Energy commission.--Pro-Lick 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Umm. Yes, it "seems" POV. Wikipedia is becoming a Leftist fantasyland. Extremely divisive and politically explosive. Nhprman 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per User:BD2412 --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Political gloating. Not needed, not cool. / Peter Isotalo 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sheer POV. Merecat 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Allen Simpson, possibly moving contents to a category of Republican controversies or something similar. Renaming might be ok if some more solid connection can be drawn between the items. Existing name is POV. Phr 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; line intellectual property, this is the name that is actually used. AaronSw 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Nhprman. Johntex\talk 20:47, 13 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 keep Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cunningham Scandal edit

Template:Cunningham Scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another template very similar to the one above. Delete both, possibly speedy delete under WP:CSD#T1. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Keep I think the Culture of Corruption template above is CSD:T1 but this one is not. This 'sidebar' template is not extremely useful (yet?) but it does no harm. KWH 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- although this one showed up here a day later, the template itself is not useful, and it rather lacking. MZM is not the only Cunningham scandal. The list of articles would be better in a category, as I suggested above. This is really list (and timeline) fodder, not appropriate for a series template. --William Allen Simpson 01:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless there's a practical plan to merge it with a another template that doesn't make them practically useless or dominate the articles they appear in. I'd like to see the proposed template before this gets deleted.--Pro-Lick 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep not POV and useful --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kwh. SushiGeek 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am concerned that scandal templates can be misued. In fact, this particular one was being misued. See template edit history. Merecat 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting and useful AaronSw 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the real objection is that the scandal templates make the extent of these scandals rather too obvious for some. The MZM scandal is the reason that the Florida GOP has abandonded Harris and Jeb Bush has been actively looking for a replacement. Ney has been named in the pleas in this scandal and in Abramoff. --Gorgonzilla 14:44, 15 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 'keep Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jack Abramoff edit

Template:Jack Abramoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another template very similar to the ones above. Delete. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Keep I actually think this one is quite useful. --Mboverload 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a bad faith nomination. The similarity to the above is due to the fact that the editor who created the templates above copied the format of this one. The nominator has not actually stated a rationale within the guidelines, but seems to have lumped this template on because it has the same color scheme(?) KWH 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- although this one showed up here a day later, the template itself is not useful, and it rather lacking. We don't even know the full extent, more comes out every few days. The list of articles would be better in a category, as I suggested above. This is really list (and timeline) fodder, not appropriate for a series template. --William Allen Simpson 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack? Is that you? --Mboverload 02:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KWH. I could see this being merged with Cunningham into a neo-con power abuse scandals template, but I'd like to see it completed and working before voting for a merge.--Pro-Lick 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Extremely POV, and unnecessary. WP is not the place for political POV-pushing. Nhprman 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Is there some debate about scandal existing? Read the articles. Crap, you could probably even get the court documents if you wanted. --Mboverload 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for expressing your POV on this issue. I suppose the issue is "settled" in some people's minds, but not others. It's called NPOV. Please refer to the WP:NPOV article for more information on this unique concept. It would be a good idea for the article, too. Nhprman 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption, embezzlement and bribery charges in January 2006. If a public figure cops to illegal acts, it's a scandal. Period.
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,640 for jack scandal. (0.18 seconds) (Google News)
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,740,000 for jack Abramoff scandal. (0.21 seconds) (Google)
--Mboverload 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the information about this corrupt little fellow is covered in his article. So I'm curious as the the point of a Template? Is it to magnify the scope of the scandal, as one poster said below, into the "Watergate" level, or, above, making an analogy to the "neo-con power abuse" Template? Is it to "keep the scandal alive" as some pundits want to do, for political purposes? If so, it's POV, but perhaps I shouldn't assume that, necessarily, even though the posts on THIS page seem to indicate that's where it's origins lie. Nhprman 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for explanation, the text "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption, embezzlement and bribery charges in January 2006." was added just to have something somewhat explanatory there... originally there was a picture but I realized that it was a fair-use picture and not allowed in a template, so I removed it. It can definitely be improved. KWH 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per KWH --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Uh...I think that's all I need to say... SushiGeek 02:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this one was more offensive before being edited, but it's still a fount for POV bias insertion. Merecat 05:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too POVAyinyud 09:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful overview of article complex -- Marcika 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the only way I can keep all of the links organized in my mind; makes the articles coherent. I'm not opposed to changing the format, though. I have no particular tie to that. --User At Work 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I'm much more impressed by the comments of those who have actually contributed to these articles, like KWH and Merecat, than those just weighing in from the outside, like William Allen Simpson. The Jack Abramoff scandals are an insanely complicated morass of links and data and people -- every single organizational strategy we can throw at it helps, as anyone who's tried to work on these entries would know. --User At Work 16:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep similar to Template:watergate. Phr 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's useful for navigating amongst the many players. Flawiki 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are four separate Abramoff scandals, the guy has pled guilty, this has led directly to the resignation of DeLay. Pretending otherwise is POV spin. --Gorgonzilla 14:39, 15 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 delete Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lightsources edit

Template:Lightsources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This recently-created template does not appear to be in use. Its content is redundant with the more recent List of light sources, and partly redundant with {{ArtificialLightSources}}. The template is much too large for its function. The list page serves the same purpose, without disrupting articles by putting a huge navbox on them. Srleffler 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with everything Srleffer has said and I thank him for his research into this. --Mboverload 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - far too huge to be a useful navigational help -- Marcika 15:04, 11 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 delete Circeus 01:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copenhagen infobox edit

Template:Copenhagen infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For some unrecorded reason the infobox at Copenhagen was originally created as a template instead of just inserted in the article. It seems never to have been used by other articles (which ones would need it?), and I can see no reason why it should be a template in the first place. I have substed it contents into Copenhagen and pasted the edit history into Talk:Copenhagen, so the template is now orphaned and should be deleted. Henning Makholm 00:08, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_7&oldid=1138690387"