Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

December 16 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 keep. Nominator gave no reasons, and no one else came up with anything. Picaroon 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam by country edit

Nomination added by 61.2.66.172 (talk · contribs) at 16:38, 16 December 2006

Speedy keep; no reason given for deletion. I've left the nominator a message asking about this. Þicaroon 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from being too long, I see nothing wrong with it. Speedy keep if the nominator doesn't reply soon. Koweja 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well the nominator left us no reasons why it should be deleted, and looks fine to me while it is a little long. — Seadog 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block IP for time wasting. Honestly... Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe bad faith nom? I dunno, this is okay though †he Bread 23:53, 16 December 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. Nishkid 64 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strict edit

This is a template created as part of arguments on the Wikipedia:Reference desk, and essentially amounts to be a tool for "requesting" what should be part of every reference desk answer—a helpful response based on facts and sources. As such, it serves no purpose but to imply that questions without the template may be answered frivolously. --SCZenz 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --SCZenz 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. The Reference Desks should always be giving serious answers, cited when reasonably possible, with frivolous answers kept to a minimum. (My answer is tentative because (a) I'm still not up to speed on all the arguments and counterarguments that have been advanced recently about the proper function of the Reference Desks, and (b) because it may turn out that deleting the template shuld be deferred until after the nascent Reference Desk policy guidelines have jelled.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's really a consensus someday that the reference desk ought to be frivolous unless requested otherwise, then the template can be recreated. -- SCZenz 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There should be a frivolous section of the reference desk, e.g. for questions about ninjas and pirates. Oops, was that a frivolous answer? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now there is, its called Entertainment Desk. lol. --Judged 00:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - SCZenz has misrepresented the purpose of the template. It means that answers should not include humor, opinions, original research, and other items considered to be generally acceptable on the Ref Desk. For some users, who only want an answer with no commentary, and who require references, this is appropriate. However, most users do not require such strict rules. This question was already brought up at the Ref Desk talk page, and there was no consensus to remove the template. StuRat 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have used the template on Ref Desk and I found it to be useful. Those who want opionion and references without sources can omit the template. What is wrong with allowing questioners to employ a used and useful template? Edison 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Serves little identifiable purpose, and could be considered harmful. Friday (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. Specifically: 1. it is helpful - it avoids misunderstanding between questioner and answerer; 2. it is not redundant - no similar template; 3. it is being used - see Edison above; 4. it is NPOV; 5. it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. Gandalf61 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless template. It makes no sense in the context of WP. → JARED ^(t) 22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. People most likely to be confused, intimidated, or insulted by joke answers are the same people least like to understand the instructions for the template's use—the young, the technically-less-adept, and those who don't speak English as their first language. The template is very rarely used, and then only by Ref Desk regulars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I'm sure the nomination and all delete opinions will be taken as evidence of further persecution of the "RD regulars" by the evil empire of fun-hating admins. This template serves no purpose other than justifying the inclusion in responses to questions that do not include it of juvenile banter generally considered to be unacceptable. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please read this informal deletion discussion, specifically this section. By the way, some of you are shooting yourselves in the foot by saying it's unwanted; if a strict set of rules for answering is unwanted, many of you don't have much ground to stand on for the RD debates --⁪froth^{T C} 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the people who need it don't know how to use it, like TenOfAllTrades said. This provides an excuse to give muddled, unhelpful answered to newbies, and then if someone complains just write "well, if they wanted a factual answer then they should've used {{strict}}". It puts the onus on question-askers, who may be newbies, rather than on experienced question-answerers, to keep the reference desk productive. -- SCZenz 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, usually the answers to the HD, RefDesk, Misc Desk etc. are 90% time serious and the helpers are always serious, I see no reason to have a template that would ask to do what they are already doing (That was a hard sentence to say :S). — Seadog 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are there enough people going to the ref desk looking for jokes, guesses, fiction, and nonsense that a tag is required for those who aren't? Substantive answers ought to be the default. Opabinia regalis 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not need a half-baked reminder that the answers I give should be both serious and to the point. As it stands it contains the inference that all answers where this silly tag does not appear are somehow frivolous. Puerlie for the puerile. Clio the Muse 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be assumed that I want this, unless I specify otherwise. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amarkov. pschemp | talk 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way. My first instinct was for keep -- but then I then I thought, it implies that RD questions not tagged this way are open for trivial and meandering replies. This is not the case, so the template can go. Vranak 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is part of the reference desk anyway. Replies there are expected to be serious, and I've seen humourous replies followed up. This isn't really needed, and I don't think many know it even exists. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Keep. I misunderstood the purpose of the template. Due to frequent 'nonsense' at the RD, I'm endorsing the template. The template itself seems unprofessional. Also, the "form and manner" preferences of a given user -- which are not a part of established guidelines/policy --- aren't binding on other users, so what justification is there for a template? Finally, a user can tell immediately how serious a communication is. Is it really that annoying to simply go to the next message? Tragic romance 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the existance of this template legitimizes the nonsense, and says it's ok as long as the template isn't placed! -- SCZenz 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not appropriate, not necessary and not in keeping with the spirit of the RD. Borders on WP:POINT as a backdoor stab to those who feel that common sense should define our responses and that a template is needed to corral our collective give-and-take. The template also suggests that for for the most part we respond with a laissez-faire or joking attitude that needs to be overtly recognized and rejected for the question to which it is appended. For the very few users that don't seem to get the well understood limits of appropriate responses then the answer is to apply community pressure to those very few users, not a "don't mess with me" warning template. --hydnjo talk 15:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Humanities and Miscellaneous desks, where I tend to hang out, often devolve into discussion and debate involving puns, jokes, and other things which are simply not helpful to a questioner, but I do not feel are necessarily 'bad' (one of my own early answers to a blatant homework question was pure joke, and not remotely helpful). If a person has had a bad day, or needs a serious answer, there is no guarantee they will receive a helpful reply. This template is a way of throwing up your hands, and saying 'guys, we all like to have fun, but just seriously for a second'. It's helpful, and serves a useful purpose. --Mnem e son 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that editors are significantly divided points to an inadequate test period. Eventually one would have to analyse the usage and determine what sort of difference it makes to answers, giving a scientific some basis for a decision. --Seejyb 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Harmful. Dr Zak 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. All answers given at the reference desk are serious. —An gr 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What Reference Desk are you looking at?? Tragic romance 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the reasons why people are voting delete, but some Reference Desk responses are frivolous and this template should remind users to focus on the purpose of the place for those questions which deserve more straightforward responses. doktorb _words^deeds 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editors do not need reminding to not be frivolous when providing answers. In any case, responders should answer to the best of their abilities, giving ref's where possible. Any questioner wanting further detail or needing a ref can ask for one without needing this template. Moreover, as a regular RD reader this template seems to me to endorse frivolous answers in questions that do not have it placed. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TenOfAllTrades. Tito xd^(?!?) 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its use - almost exclusively by the so-called "Ref Desk Regulars", one should note - implicitly legitimises the injokes and opinionating that blights the Reference Desk. Harmful to the project. Rockpocket 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zunaid. If you want jokes, ask for them in plain text. If you don't want any jokes, ask for that in plain text. Otherwise, the presumption should be that questions deserve a serious answer, and that jokes, if there are any, should not detract from that. In any case, a huge attention-grabbing notice box is not needed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — those it would most help are least likely to use it, and it implies that serious answers are exceptions when they should be the rule. —Keenan Pepper 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See the Frivolous Answers I was getting in the Math Desk regarding a Christmas present?--Foundby 00:58, 24 December 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 Deleted by User:Nickshanks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Projects edit

Delete - This template was used as a small text box within Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects. It has been removed from the page, and it is no longer needed. --Dr. Submillimeter 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There does not seem to be any dissent to their deletion, as members of the wikiproject agree that this and other templates, are no longer needed. Can you pls confirm and I'll close this and delete them. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 December 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:Millenia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to weak keep. M a rtinp23 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary with {{millenniabox}} at the top of the actual millenia. Misspelled. ~~Incomplete: 30th millennium BC not in navbar.~~ Include {{Millenia BC}} which redirect to it. Possibly to be included only in the Millennia article, but wouldn't need to be a template for that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from maker: Hello Arthur. Some warning on my talk page would be appreciated in future. The misspelling of millenia on the template has no effect on the actual template, if you are that concerned however, it can be moved. 30th millennium BC is now in the template. The template was originally created to link up a few "lonely" articles with a universal template. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies. TfDs normally run 5-7 days, and I was planning to be on my way out, and get back to this tomorrow. It's been trimmed now, and appears more reasonable, be I still don't see the need. Millennia 30 BC, 23 BC, and 22 BC are now redirects, anyway, and should not be in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs).
Comment— correction. Now (or, at least yesterday) only includes millennia with actual articles, not redirects to longer time intervals. I still don't see a need for this template, but it's less disruptive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above templates being used more widely. → JARED ^(t) 22:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't mean their better. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this template is useful if someone wants to find out more on a more distant mellennium page. This allows a connection between the 10th millennium BC and 10th millennium articles, for example. -AMK152 00:46, 21 December 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:RouteboxIA 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 M a rtinp23 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaced by {{Infobox road}}. Additionally, this routebox was intended for use at the bottom of the article, contrary to the purpose of an infobox, which is typically located at the top of the article to give a brief overview of the article's subject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. → JARED ^(t) 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --• master_son^{Lets talk} 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Station Attendant 23:32, 20 December 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:Seven Network schedule 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 and substM a rtinp23 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a TV guide. Requires updating or becomes misleading. More appropriate to link to network's website for a tv guide. Precedent exists with Australian tv schedule templates (see deletion logs June 20, 2006 and July 4, 2006), all of which have resulted in deletion. Tntnnbltn 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a few other TV guides have been deleted recently also †he Bread 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It would be nice to have an article about TV scheduling, but I'm doubtful that reliable sources can be found on the topic, unfortunately. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is actually one of the explicit examples in WP:NOT. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are other current programs on Wikipedia (example 1, example 2, example 3) the same as this template. I try to keep this template updated almost everyday as an example of Seven Network's line up, not a TV guide. I understand your concerns, but think this schedule should still be kept --Whats new? 11:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to add external links to http://tviv.org/ to articles, and contribute to that project directly. ~~Keeps~~ Leaves each thing in its box. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV directory --Mnem e son 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per the fact that there are other similar templates out there, and they are important and encyclopedic in conveying a network's lineup. → JARED ^(t) 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wiki is NOT TV Guide or for that matter a TV guide. doktorb _words^deeds 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and subst - as it's only transcluded onto one page. The point of a template is that it's used across many pages. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Mike Beckham 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and subst as per Patstuart. --Howard the Duck 14:09, 24 December 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:Advert 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. This template is used with good cause by editors who may not be in a position to improve such articles themselves, but would like to forewarn other readers of the article's nature. To delete it would cause too much disruption and alternatives would soon arise, with worse names. — Nicholas (reply) @ 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this template does anything useful. Rather, it seems to introduce additional POV. Other than that, it is just another poor excuse for negative editors to criticise the work of others rather than fixing things themselves. I urge you to delete this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been put at Maroochydore, Queensland - the language there is supposed to prove that it is notable - i.e. say what's important and significant about the place. Zephyr103 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get why Millsberry is tagged, it dosen't read like an advertisement to me. User:Cmputer
- Disagreeing with it being placed on one article is hardly a reason to completely remove the tag. Koweja 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's one strange discussion. Advertising is in violation of numerous policies (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV etc.), and marking it for cleanup with this template is certainly not "negative", "criticism" or "additional POV" - please remember to assume good faith. And what's an article on an Australian locality got to do with this? Sandstein 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it may be used as a criticism, it is valid criticism--there's a difference between being non-neutral (accidentally or otherwise) and sounding like a full-blown ad. Ideally, such articles would be hacked down to neutral/factual stubs or put up for deletion immediately, but if the editor doesn't want to be hasty (or doesn't have time), this template can help draw attention from more experienced/available anti-ad patrollers to offer second opinions or deal with the article appropriately. --Arvedui 12:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at how this template is currently being used, it tends to be put on articles whose wording is felt to be favourable to the subject. Have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Advert. The intent may be good, but it's absolutely not working. It's just one more annoying template anyone could stick on an article. As for your experienced anti-ad patrollers, I wonder what they're doing most of the time, because they don't seem to be fixing wording as required by the template. Utterly useless. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Specific issue useful template to alert editors that an article is written as an advertisement, but is notable and can be salvaged by making it conform to neutral point of view. It is also worth noting that the template has been nominated for deletion before here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005#Template:Advert. The result was keep. --tgheretford (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful template to tag articles that appear to be promos for a product or service. I've seen the template misused as a POV device (tagging it to mean "this article isn't negative enough to suit my POV about the topic") but the answer in that case is to remove the template and replace it with a more appropriate one if needed. Too useful a template to delete. Dragomiloff 13:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to be doing this job on a daily basis? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's up to anyone who sees this to fix it. You can too. Dragomiloff 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think my position on that is amply clear. Fix it when it happens to articles you care about, not because you enjoy whipping yourself with jobs that other people were too lazy to do. Very bad attitude. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whoa there, if I read your earlier post right you were suggesting that I should take on this task on a daily basis since I voted keep, and now you seem to be saying the opposite. You aren't making much sense. Dragomiloff 00:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone uses this template to push POV and suppress other viewpoints, then one might argue that {{npov}} is used to push POV and suppress other viewpoints, too. Or {{hoax}} too. Or any other cleanup/dispute tag for that matter. The fact is, these tags are not Holy Word; It's not nice to remove them from the articles if they are valid and haven't been addressed properly, but if they're clearly misused, it's appropriate to remove them. This issue is not serious enough to warrant deletion of an otherwise useful template. With the new spam speedy deletion criterion, this tag is as relevant as ever, and even more so. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good template and I dont see any that can completely replace it. --Natl1 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very good, useful template that helps keep wiki-polices like WP:NOT enforced. dposse 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is nothing wrong with taging articles that violate guidelines as needing cleanup. Koweja 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A fine template, no suitable alternative. Quatloo 18:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful template Subwayguy 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nothing is wrong with it Bgold4 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the template's intent being perfectly within normal guidelines, policy and precedent - if you can't clean it yourself, tag it. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many articles on the encyclopedia are very ad-like. It's better to just tag them as such. We don't have time to fix all the ad language on the encyclopedia (the backlog is already tremendous). Part Deux 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - really useful template. Monni 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep helps out editors find these type of things and also has shows the newcomers what they can't do and for readers. Basically it is usfull to everybody. — Seadog 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What a bunch of nonsense. If there is a template on a page, it means one editor has already found the problem and done nothing about it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought experiment: let's put all templates that apply on all articles they apply to. I shall start doing so today, and review our position in a few weeks' time. You guys can run in my wake and clean things up. Also make sure you accuse me of WP:POINT violation and miscellaneous other offenses. 'cause you're not gonna like it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's no one's obligation to do anything here at Wikipedia, as we're all volunteers. We hope that editors use common sense when tagging articles. An article that needs a great deal of work ought to get a single {{cleanup}} tag, with explanation on the talk page, not every single specific tag that might apply. If you have a problem with this system, I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump; this is not the place to try to change process. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Samsara, please don't be bitter that this nomination isn't working out right. I'm not sure the reasons you think this template shouldn't work (though I've read your words), but I can assure you, on a personal level, this template is extremely helpful when patroling dead-end pages. I realize that perhaps we should "just clean up the article", but then, by this argument, we should get rid of every other cleanup template, like {{uncat}}, {{wikify}}, {{OR}}, {{unsourced}}, and so on and so on. I can understand your frustration, but please understand that, speaking for myself, my keep vote (I know, it's not a vote: can't find a better word) was not a knee-jerk reaction, but a recognition that thie template is quite helpful. Otherwise, if we don't have time to fix a page (and let's be honest, there's a large backlog right now), we'd have to outright delete the page as spam. I know you may find it lazy that editors don't fix any POV problems, but if you've ever done Dead-end or new page patrol, you'd realize that we'd fall too far behind if we fixed every problem we saw. And, at the risk of alienating you even further: yes, your response was definitely a WP:POINT reaction (I know how difficult it is to refrain from these: after the Ron Jeremy incident, I was horribly tempted to go through every BLP article and delete everything unsourced - even though I knew Jimbo was right). Part Deux 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Finally, someone who understands the words. I don't know anything about the Ron Jeremy incident, but yes, this discussion has convinced me that we need to get rid of the cleanup templates. The whole lot. I don't see how they are helping us achieve anything, or making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for your comments. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other keeps, this is fine †he Bread 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the many applicable arguments already offered, and the fact that no one has stepped up to suggest deletion. SnowFire 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Template:User:COMPFUNK2 templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all - perhaps these could have been done under CSD G6 (housekeeping)? M a rtinp23 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are all orphans and all duplicates of ones on User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes. Presumably, it was not intentional to create them in template space. Please note: despite the name, these pages are in template space. --BigDT 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? Delete obviously created by mistake and already userfied. Koweja 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. → JARED ^(t) 22:29, 17 December 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:Infobox Philippine High School 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 delayed delete, but after anything from this template worth keeping has been merged into {{Infobox Secondary School}}, and all uses have been migrated (there's more than one usage now [1]). Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete. M a rtinp23 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of ~~Template:Infobox Secondary School~~. Template:Infobox University ----Howard the Duck 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate. See content. If duplicate, then delete other secondary schools templates as well (eg. Singapore, etc). Pmgomez 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Currently, only Xavier School uses this template. Another Philippine school, De La Salle Santiago Zobel School, uses Template:Infobox Secondary School. --Howard the Duck 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLS-Z can then use the Philippine Secondary School template. 209.8.41.106 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't. DLS-Z is already fine with the template it's using. --Mithril Cloud 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is an obvious duplicate of the Infobox University template. --Mithril Cloud 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPROVE UPON. Don't just rant/complain. Edit and improve. Show, don't tell. Pmgomez 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are deficiencies in Template: Infobox Secondary school, tell me so I can add it there. --Howard the Duck 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. One would be the motto. Place as field and not under the seal. Second, refer to fields relevant to secondary schools which are found in the PH HS template / uni template and not found in the sec schools template. Third, delete all other secondary schools templates (Malaysia, Singapore, HighSchool, high school, etc) since they are redundant, as deemed by you. ... among others. Pmgomez 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give me the links of the other national templates? I'll append them here. --Howard the Duck 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Templates: Template:Infobox Hong Kong Secondary Schools, Template:Infobox Aust school, Template:Infobox Aust school private, Template:Infobox Education in Canada, Template:Education in Gary, Indiana, Template:Infobox Education in the United States, Template:Infobox English Public School, Template:High School Infobox, Template:Infobox high school, Template:Infobox HighSchool, Template:Infobox NZ school, Template:Infobox Malaysia School, Template:Infobox Singapore School, Template:Infobox International School, among others; Addenum re design: remove white background, add "white space". Pmgomez 08:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, since there are too many of them, and too many articles to edit, I'll be asking the people at WP:SCH for some help. Nevertheless, I still say to delete this template since Infobox Secondary school is sufficient enough for Philippine schools, although as for other countries, it maybe different. --Howard the Duck 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, delete once the Secondary Schools template is better. For now, keep until improved. Pmgomez 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that templates shouldn't look pretty, they're there to show information. The aesthetics of a template will improve over time, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Presenting information ought to be intuitive and clear -- not the case with Secondary Schools. Aesthetics of a template will improve over time, yes. But until that time, keep. { PMGOMEZ } 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But what is wrong with the Secondary School template? As I've said, all that is found on your infobox can be added on the Secondary Schools infobox. --Howard the Duck 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree, so merging the two ( + those of other countries ) into the Secondary Schools infobox would be good. Please feel free to start doing so. ;-) { PMGOMEZ } 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's there to improve? It's just a plain copy of an already existing template. That's why the Infobox Secondary School template was created; to be used for secondary schools. --Mithril Cloud 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only used on one page. Another template could easily take its place. → JARED ^(t) 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replies. Jared, Xavier School, ~~La Salle Green Hills, De La Salle-Santiago Zobel School~~, Philippine Science High School System and Claret School of Quezon City use the template. Unless someone would revert them. Mithrill, what's there to improve? Design. Else, sure, adopt the Secondary Schools template to the XS page, but make it look great. :)
- For the record, pmgomez changed their templates and I reverted them all. It's not a good idea to apply a template that is for deletion. --Howard the Duck 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, La Salle Green Hills, De La Salle-Santiago Zobel School, and thousands of other secondary school articles utilized the Infobox Secondary School template to its full capabilities, which Pmgomez couldn't seem to do with Xavier School. --Mithril Cloud 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Preference. Not couldn't. Pmgomez 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come to think of it, Mithril, PLEASE use the Secondary Schools template on Xavier School and make the infobox beautiful. :) Pmgomez 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, no problem. --Mithril Cloud 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and you were very brash at doing so. Pmgomez 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CONDITIONAL keep - if it's improved upon, and has Phillipines specific content (e.g., specific provinces: sorry, I don't know about Filipino geography), then it can be helpful. As it stands, there are many Filipino high schools on the encyclopedia, so it could be added to those. BUT, if it's not improved to be any better within a few days, then just delete. (I would argue similarly, that if it's recreated, that should be allowed, but only if substantially different). -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Philippines not Phillipines. :) ... Thanks re Philippine-specific content. Added. { PMGOMEZ } 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite a few Philippine high schools have an infobox, and those which have one use the Secondary schools infobox. --Howard the Duck 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - They can start migrating. ;-) { PMGOMEZ } 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Migrate to where? --Howard the Duck 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Per above, I see this solved by going in two either directions: 1) Philippine High School infobox merged into the Secondary Schools infobox, *and* apply the Secondary Schools infobox to ALL Philippine secondary schools, and if your powers will permit, all secondary schools in the world. ... or, 2) Apply the Philippine High School infobox to all Philippine secondary schools. Your take please? { PMGOMEZ } 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd take the first option. But look, some of those templates you've mentioned are used in hundreds of articles, and converting them will take a ~~while~~ long while. I've already started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools on what to do with this. As for Philippine high schools, the fact that the ones that had infoboxes used the Secondary schools template is enough proof that Secondary schools is good enough for Philippine high school articles. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeap, saw your thread there. Good enough does not mean real good or great. Let's go for excellence. :) { PMGOMEZ } 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wokay. So, discussion closed. Keep until Secondary Schools is improved. I will nominate the deletion of the template itself once Secondary Schools has reached a certain level of excellence. { PMGOMEZ } 02:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Only admins/sysops can close discussions. --Howard the Duck 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Per Martinp23, any user can close the discussion. Anyway, OK. { PMGOMEZ } 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Any user can close it if the nominator withdrew. In this case, he hasn't. Also, the consensus wasn't keep, as you've said. --Howard the Duck 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, in that case, kindly speed up the stuff above or choose option 2 so that this can already be closed, hopefully before the end of the year. { PMGOMEZ } 02:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I won't withdraw this nomination with 5 delete votes, 1 conditional (being addressed) and 1 keep. --Howard the Duck 08:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem. This is fun anyway. :) { PMGOMEZ } 16:05, 24 December 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:Needimage 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, as all three contributors to the page (Bitchen, Someguy0830 and Heligoland) have said that they want it deleted or don't mind, making it a CSD G7. Tito xd^(?!?) 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That template isn't used very much yet, but the few articles show already what's wrong:

Yeast - templatitis: People who want to read the article have to search for the article text.

Thracian language - It looks like the template was dropped randomly. A comment at the talk page mentiones "for obvious reasons". Well, I had a look at other language articles and most of them don't have any images at all.

Alyssa Alps - the template is mostly used on pages of porn stars or nude models. Hmm ...

Template format: it's big, it gives redundant information (no or only a few pictures (I actually see that myself), a link to the "upload file" function, ...) a corresponding category is missing.

Redundancy: see template:reqphoto ("talk pages only" - that's how it should be. Don't bug the reader .) --32X 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped all pages using this template over to {{reqphoto}} as it's quite clear the consensus will be to delete this template, so there's not a real need to keep this TfD open, and I'd ask an admin to close under WP:SNOW. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This template is very annoying. --orlady 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would recommend using {{Diagram needed}}, which allows placing the requested image in the article. Someone was "bold" and replaced it with a redirect. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. Not bothered what happens (anything else would be a bit daft as I created the template originally) but the usage in the Yeast article is hellish, and raises further concerns about placing templates in article space and not article-talk space. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after cleaning the template I find it to be a bit annoying. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Someguy0830. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with existing photo request system. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not useful as there is already a request photo template for the talk pages of articles. No reason to have a big bulky template on a talk page that would be redundant to the talk and is hard for readers to find the text. — Seadog 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't belong on the article page and we have one for the talk page. Koweja 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles don't need more images, no matter how nice it would be to have them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Some pages need more images, how else must we get out the message? frummer 01:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By using template:reqphoto on the talk page, as noted above. The one under discussion is larger, more grating, pops up on articles rather than talk, and needs a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent's Choice (talk • contribs)
Delete per Amarkov and Serpent's Choice. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{reqphotoin}} is a much more useful template, to be put on the talk page. A template like this should never be on the main page. → JARED ^(t) 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I only improved this template because I thought it was ugly. Had I known about (or researched, duh!) template:reqphoto and template:reqphotoin I would have replaced it with one of those. I take full blame for furthering the life of this monstrosity even one day. :) 'bitchen' ric 17:28, 18 December 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.