Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10, 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 -- Drini 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3di H1 edit

Speedy delete not in use.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedy - it's not in use because the nominator orphaned it). It was in use on [1], and it's clearly not useful. --SPUI (T - C) 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if nominator orphaned, (and delete if not either) ... 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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 no consensus to delete Pagra shtak 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authoritarian types of rule edit

Keep I fail to see how it does not conform to NPOV policy. Also, how is it over-simplistic/too general? As far as I can tell, its merely a link-template for several autocratic/authoritarian forms of government. CharonX/talk 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly, how many autocratic regimes have there been? Impossible to fill a template named after a adjective. POV construction, there are already enough relevant templates for these articles. -- max rspct leave a message 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me. Also, as Charon said, it's not POV as far as I can see, other than the subject matter might be a philosophy some people wouldn't agree with. Mr. Le fty _{Talk to me!} 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation Cwolfsheep 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is to reduce overlapping mentions of different forms of government in these articles and to generate discussion. I even used two different template markers (Autocratic & Authoritarian) that can be applied to either category for if and when someone feels they would need to be split. That step was actually prompted by one's POV that Autocratic and Authoritarian systems are not the same. That said, there are examples of both that overlap, and deserve treatment as such, herefore they are presented in the current format.
- As for the threat of competing and redundant articles, I am slowly going through different government articles to see if they qualify for merging or placement on the template. Furthermore, forms of government are very stable compared to actual governments, teams, trends, etc: you're not going to have this thing change 20 times a week because of what TIOBE says; that fluculation has damned Template:Major programming languages (recently deleted).
Keep but either do some cleanup or split into separate Autocratic and Authoritarian templates. jgp 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Like it or not, governments do come in various flavors. I don't care for this kind of hyper-liberal attack on commonsense categories. John Reid 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:"hyper-liberal"? Another unsuitable description. Common-sense.. or in the vernacular? -- max rspct leave a message 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Arbitrary, pointless, unsystematic, unencyclopedic attempt at classification.
Keep - No reason to delete, definitely not NPOV. Can nom explain why it is too general? --WinHunter ^(talk)

Septentrionalis 18:26, 16 June 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 Obsoleted and redundant. -- Drini 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox President and PM edit

Template:Infobox President and PM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary, as Template:Infobox President has a feature that allows for this. See Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Charles de Gaulle and Jacques Chirac for examples. Philip Stevens 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I confess I was not aware. Delete as redundant. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there is a similar template than can replace this one. Afonso Silva 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since the template's creator (and its only editor other than the nom) wants it deleted. jgp 17:23, 11 June 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.