Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21 edit

Template:Buffycanon 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. —Centrx→talk • 05:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Buffypedia. Deciding what is and what is not "buffyverse canon" is not our job, and considering the dubious WP:OR nature of the whole "buffy canon" thing, it's not clear this would ever really be verifiable on any article. Plus, I don't see why anyone would need a "warning" that something isn't Buffyverse canon, even if that's true. Mango juice^talk 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The amount of detail undertaken in the "Buffyverse" articles is frightening, to be honest. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, excessive fancruft. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pmsyyz 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Cruft! — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - maybe seen as 'cruft' by some people, but many people who use Buffyverse wikipedia articles will be fans but not know which stories are canon, and which aren't, and non-fans are given the option of discovering what canon is by clicking on a link from that template. The template is being used on hundreds of pages (see here). Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse says on its main page that Noncanon material can be discussed but the distinction has to be very sharp, and canon materials take priority. We need to ensure that nonofficial information cannot be mistaken for official information. That is the purpose of the template in question. I'm guessing this is likely to be deleted, but that will be a big disservice to anyone who wants to read and understand about the Buffyverse on wikipedia. -- Buffyverse 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the Wikiproject. I can understand why some people might not want this in the template space, but I would see nothing wrong with putting it in WikiProject Buffy and then transcluding it to the articles in question from there. - CheNuevara 16:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or Move - Fans of a fictional universe should be able to know whether stories are officially sanctioned as 'real' (in a fictional sense) by the creator of that fictional universe or not. Removing the template will go a way to denying fans of that knowledge. -- Paxomen 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template isn't used to distinguish between 'officially sanctioned' stories and others. It's just some Buffyfans' opinions about what they think is 'real'. They throw out lots of 'officially sanctioned' stories. It might be a go in userspace, but nowhere else. VivianDarkbloom 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep canonicity is an important part of the information about spin-offs of fictional works like this, but I'm not sure a template is the best way to handle it. Ace of Sevens 21:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this mutated apparition of the useless spoiler warning ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose it's valid to establish that there is a distinction between the novels and the TV show as far as what is known amoung fans, but saying that the books aren't cannon seems more than slightly self defeating. The books are what we have, they are the present and future of Buffy. If James Marsters doesn't get to do the Spike movie, this is probably going to be the last we see until they do a reunion special or a remake, and that'll probably be a few years. We have to be thankful for what we have and try to encourage others to do so as well. If people stop buying the books, there won't be any more books, and then there goes the neighborhood. I propose we remove the Cannon Warning labels until there's actually a cannon problem. For example, if there are sources that disagree, then we should label that, but otherwise, we can't bring everything that comes out into question just because it's new. --MaskedScissorDoll 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It really needs to be reformatted to non-bold after the colon to make it less jarring. - LA @ 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Wikipedia does not need disclaimers warning that something isn't strictly in a universe's "canon". It should be mentioned in the article content if necessary but having a spoiler-style warning is just too much. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Cyde. Establish the canonicity of a production (or lack thereof) in the lead section with prose. I found this warning far too distracting. — TKD::Talk 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inappropriate for an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good greif. Do not need this. This is fan-cruft ABOUT fan-cruft, and is inheirently OR by its use. Who's the editor to declare something isn't 'CANNON'? Does this implies what follows is wrong? Factual accuracy disputes tag is a better choice. Kevin_b_er 01:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As at this point, a fairly significant consensus has been reached, I've started removing this template from the load of articles it's in. Mangojuice^talk 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay; the template no longer appears in any articles. Mangojuice^talk 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That had to be tedious, nice job ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:38, 1 August 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:Buffyadult 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 as author request. Kusma (討論) 09:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

directory of NN pornspam. VivianDarkbloom 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three of the four links redirect to the same article which is flagged for speedy deletion. Even assuming the speedy deletion of the other article is denied, it survives an AFD listing, and it's eventually split into three new articles, I don't see enough of a reason to have a template that could just as easily and more unobtrusively be included in a "see also" section of the relevant articles. Neil916 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the speedy tag has been removed. The one page this appears on may be deleted but on the other hand it may stay. Still, if all the films redirect to the same place, there's not much point for a navigation box. Mango juice^talk 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary navigation box. All the links redirect to the same article. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's only one page on this. A template can be created in the future if needed. Ace of Sevens 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge salvageable info to {{Buffyversenav}} ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone got sneaky and created redirects to the same article for three of the links and the 4th is up for deletion. - LA @ 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And it will probably become a redirect to the same article as the other three. Septentrionalis 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this template when there had originally been links to each individual article (3 films, one comic), but I felt it made more sense to merge the articles into one (Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies) so this template is now useless. - Boffy Layer 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Boffy Layer under WP:CSD#G7. --Zoz (t) 17:46, 27 July 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:Diagram needed 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (and the little-used Template:Picture needed)[reply]

Butt-ugly template; {{Reqdiagram}} should be used instead. --SPUI (T - C) 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. I don't consider ugliness to be a good reason for deletion since the templates can be improved at any time. The templates serve a different purpose than the {{Reqdiagram}} template in that they are placeholders in an article to demonstrate where the diagram is needed. Neil916 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, the intent is to act as a placeholder, marking the place in the article where the diagram should go.--Srleffler 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Could this template be considered self-referental? If someone gets a diagram up and going, through the talk page, then it can be decided where it should go, but I don't think it should be decided before then. Hbdragon88 08:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's no picture, there's no picture. It doesn't do the reader any good to know that "this spot is where a picture ought to be", and whoever responds to {{Reqdiagram}} can decide for themselves where the picture needs to be placed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone has gone to the trouble of finding or making a diagram then I am sure they can work out where it should go. the wub "?!" 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Neil and Srleffler. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't like it in a given article, draw the diagram, replace with {{reqdiagram}} or take it out. But it is being used; and it seems a good way to indicate what diagrams the tagger wants. Septentrionalis 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have made a couple of diagrams for articles that I'd have passed up if this hadn't been used as a placeholder. --Hellahulla 17:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This works as it was intended too. As they say, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it." TomStar81 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't do this for text; we shouldn't do it for images. Foobaz·o< 07:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both, in favor of {{Reqdiagram}} which is far cleaner. --24.145.241.156 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very useful. 71.140.202.222 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The image could use a makeover, however. GeeCee 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, incredibly annoying. --Snarius 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Passer-by 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Neil916, Srleffler and TomStar81. Also, {{diagram needed}} is less ugly than {{Reqdiagram}}. modify 02:01, 3 August 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:Scotland Squad 1990 World Cup 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for old world cup templates. The current ones are set for deletion soon. Any Wrld cup appearances can be mentioned on the players' pages and they can be added to a category SenorKristobbal 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just because something is historical doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Half of WP is probably historical, should that be deleted? --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all pending a policy decision - discussion started at WC template talk. BlueValour 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete were not deleting the articles just the irrelavent templates. The information is still on the articels, these templates are just pointless duplication of that information. They are just pointless clutter. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion this information should be written into the World Cup articles, not kept in boxed templates on every player's page. aLii 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like it, although I appreciate the arguments presented. --Guinnog 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all templates I think they are a very good way of navigating players, being able to easily see who was in that particular World Cup squad with ease. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk

Isn't that what categories are for? Philc _T^E_C^I 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passer-by 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 11:31, 7 August 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:Scotland Squad 1986 World Cup 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 deletion RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for old world cup templates. The current ones are set for deletion soon. Any Wrld cup appearances can be mentioned on the players' pages and they can be added to a category SenorKristobbal 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments above --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all pending a policy decision - discussion started at WC template talk. BlueValour 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete were not deleting the articles just the irrelavent templates. The information is still on the articels, these templates are just pointless duplication of that information. They are just pointless clutter. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion this information should be written into the World Cup articles, not kept in boxed templates on every player's page. aLii 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like it, although I appreciate the arguments presented. --Guinnog 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 11:32, 7 August 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:Scotland Squad 1998 World Cup 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for old world cup templates. The current ones are set for deletion soon. Any Wrld cup appearances can be mentioned on the players' pages and they can be added to a category SenorKristobbal 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments above --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all pending a policy decision - discussion started at WC template talk. BlueValour 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete were not deleting the articles just the irrelavent templates. The information is still on the articels, these templates are just pointless duplication of that information. They are just pointless clutter. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion this information should be written into the World Cup articles, not kept in boxed templates on every player's page. aLii 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like it, although I appreciate the arguments presented. --Guinnog 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Already discussed on Argentine before. Matt86hk talk 11:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passer-by 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 11:33, 7 August 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 Wisconsin State Highway 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Wisconsin functionality added to {{infobox road}}. Compare [1] to [2]. (Yes, infobox road has a junctions line - I just didn't feel WIS 76 was a major junction in this specific case.) --SPUI (T - C) 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the functionality was successfully merged with {{infobox road}}, making this template redundant. Neil916 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried the {{infobox road}} prior to the merge. but now that that infobox is upgraded - I'd say yes - delete this one. Thanks for the tip. --master_son^{Lets talk} 22:20, 21 July 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:Magazinephoto 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not voting one way or another just yet, but wanted to get discussion going on this one. It seems to me that the template was created specifically so that the user could attach it to some images he wanted to upload. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rationale for fair use doesn't seem like it's one of Wikipedia's official fair use exemptions. Looks like a way for an editor to deflect copyvio claims. Neil916 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is best to discuss new copyright tags at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags before being putting them to use; this one is just as Neil suggests. Images from inside a magazine may be owned by the publishers, may have been licensed to the publishers, or may have been used under fair use standards very different from our own. Because of these varied situations, a tag like this could never be useful and does nothing but encourage copyright violation. Incidentally, despite even the template's dubious claim that all such images qualify for fair use "to illustrate the publication in question", its creator is merely using it to justify the use of magazine photos in articles about the American football players depicted in the photographs. ×Meegs 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Meegs says, it is going to encourage copyvios. It is used as a neat way to avoid citing the original source of the image (see Image:StrattonTacklesLincoln.jpg). It panders to the "I got it from this Geocities fan site" mentality of providing a source. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<evil>I'd rather keep it - it makes copyvio images easier to find.</evil> Delete as this is almost always not an example of fair use. BigDT 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I now vote delete. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meegs. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:53, 25 July 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:Trialperiod 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was written by an anonymous user for the sole purpose of forcing the inclusion of {{Infobox Scientist}} on Albert Einstein. The presence of the template (see here) creates the appearance that the factuality or neutrality of the page is disputed, when in fact the only dispute is the template author's edit war. Although some logged-in editors of the page favor adding an infobox to the page, only the template author, User:80.36.216.111, and his sock puppets, User:212.145.145.227 and User:194.42.125.16, favor the presence of the template. Inasmuch as the logged-in editors will not tollerate the presence of the template and promptly remove it whenever it is added, the template has no use and should be deleted. (The template also has a silly name.) teb728 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allow me to quote from 212.145.145.227: "This namby-pamby attitude of `oooh, it lookths so obtruthif' is really spineless. Real adults use warning boxes." About as much use as those "AOL Trial" CDs that keep showing up in the mail (see here). –Joke 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ugly and absurd Vsmith 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's being ignored anyways and added or removed with the entire infobox each time a reversion is being made. We wouldn't need a "trial period" if the status quo were maintained while a consensus was reached on the discussion page. ju66l3r 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deltee - per all the above. Paul August ☎ 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly agree with ju66l3r. Neil916 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ju66l3r. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 00:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a good idea, but it should have gone through policy proposals first. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attempt at artifical policy through the 'must remain for 30 days' statement. As per Paul. Kevin_b_er 02:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ju66l3r. --Bchociej 07:18, 29 July 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.