Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 15

< March 14	March 16 >

March 15, 2006 edit

More aircraft nav 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. While participation in the disucssion was extremely low, the fact that the templates have been replaced by a more general version and are now unused means they are truly no longer needed and can be deleted without any loss of information. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military aircraft by type Template:Russian aircraft by type Template:Milair by tn Template:Russian military aircraft by type Obsolete, have been superseded by Template:Milair nt; fully depopulated. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:06, 15 March 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:Guatemala 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. The proposed cross-namespace redirect from this template to the Guatemala article strikes me as undesirable and unlikely to be useful. The point here is that country-specific infoboxes are no longer needed because they've been replaced by a generic infobox. Several country-specific infoboxes were already deleted in the past days and weeks, and other nominations are still pending. In all cases I'm aware of the outcome was to delete. For the sake of uniformity and consistency, perhaps a single nomination of all country-specific infoboxes would have been more helpful. In any case: delete, do not redirect. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CG 09:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --naryathegreat | (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or keep and redirect to Guatemala. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Insta ntnood 17:03, 22 March 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:Sensationalism 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. — Mar. 23, '06 [01:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm not sure what the point of this template is. Is there an epidemic of "sensationalistic" articles I'm unaware of? And what does this have to do with the living persons biography issue? Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the topic itself is inappropriate, the article should be listed for deletion, not just slapped with another tag. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. MiraLuka 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless theres a wikipolicy regarding sensationalism, get rid of this --Larsinio 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is. Sensationalism is a form of bias, which is covered by the NPOV policy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:53, 17 March 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:Sofixitreply 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. The debate was nearly unanimous except for one complex opinion that tried to tie the outcome of this debate to a non-existing debate about the fate of {{sofixit}}, which is not currently nominated for deletion. Note that changing the name of {{sofixit}} is rather pointless, since that template should almost always be substituted anyway. {{sofixit}} itself has been used in two distinct ways: as a tool to explain how Wikipedia works to outsiders, which is its intended use; and to deliver a sarcastic trout-smacking to those who know very well how Wikipedia works. {{sofixitreply}} is only useful for insiders as a reply to that second, somewhat misguided usage of {{sofixit}}, and as such it arguably serves no legitimate purpose. I won't cc it to BJAODN; but feel free to do that yourselves. When you feel that WP:BJAODN needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit WP:BJAODN by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sofixitreply (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a sarcastic reply to {{sofixit}}. If someone wants to reply sarcastically to {{sofixit}}, I'm sure that someone can come up with their own witty retort, and doesn't need this template's help. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is useful. In fact, I'm not even sure {{sofixit}} itself is, but that template is much more in line with our general principles. Superm401 - Talk 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complex vote: either keep this or change the name of "sofixit" and delete this, but in any case work on rewording whatever may be kept. Ardric47 07:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:CIVIL --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be something of a personal attack --Larsinio 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but maybe it's time to try and nominate {{Sofixit}} for deletion, userfication, or BJAODN-ization again, too. Like many people (its supporters!) said in its previous vote, it's more of an in-joke than a useful template. Clearly anyone who knows enough to use a cleanup-type template or discuss things on talk pages knows that they can edit articles; {{Sofixit}} is, like this one, nothing more than a condescendingly-worded canned reply. We don't need templates like that. Possibly it could become an essay or rant, but it shouldn't be a template. --Aquillion 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like {{sofixit}} is designed for people who don't know that they can edit and fix stuff up - users with few contribs and anons. --Christopherlin 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although hilarious, delete. Move to BJAODN per CIVIL and somewhat NPA. Who wants boilerplate sarcasm? It's so much better when it's original. --Christopherlin 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN 'nough said. --Banana04131 00:08, 19 March 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:Chatham Islands 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 straightforward: keep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chatham Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a good idea in concept, but all but two of the island listed redirect to Chatham Islands. Four pages link to this template, one of which is Chatham Islands, and another that lists it as a template/page with red links. This template will be more useful in the future if the other individual islands mentioned are developed into their own articles instead of being redirects. --CrypticBacon 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn based on improvement of the template and the assumption that it will be more useful sometime in the future. --CrypticBacon 06:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is still somewhat useful as is. However, I have unlinked the redirects and empty pages. Superm401 - Talk 22:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as amended by Superm401.-gadfium 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful as roadmap and future use. --Larsinio 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty obscure topic. If in the future the articles are expanded, it could be reinstated. -- Hongooi 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 21:50, 21 March 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:Psprotected 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. Arguing to keep it in the hope that policy "may change eventually" is rather pointless: if the template serves no legitimate purpose now, then keeping it around will at best send a confusing message. More importantly, creating a template for a situation that one knows is "100% against policy" is a very bad idea. If you want to resolve a situation where a page is de facto protected indefinitely, creating a template like this one is not the way to go about it. Related to this, the "speedy keep" opinion is utterly confused: the nomination was valid and made in good faith, so there is no reason to argue "speedy keep"; and trying to tie this debate to another situation involving the protection of a portal page is improper. If you want to get a page protection lifted, then request unprotection through the proper channels, don't try and hold this template hostage. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Larsinio 21:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is, by my count, the third template created for this purpose which would be fine if the purpose existed. The creations are all in good-faith, but they do indeed lend credence to something that is not done and is only tolerated on GWB because of some rather OWNy editors to the page. The mass of templates that are protected (pointlessly, imo) are mainly full protected. -Splash^talk 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, potentially useful. Policy may change eventually. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't make templates for policies that "might change". Then we'd have an infinite number of useless templates which blatantly violate Wikipedia policy. And on the other hand, this policy in particular has about as much chance of changing as Jimbo Wales does of sprouting antlers (okay, maybe that's not remote enough).--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --CrypticBacon 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keeping templates "in case we need them" causes confusion because people assume if the template exists it is OK to use it. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did create this template after a discussion on WP:RFPP about Portal:Box-header, wich I asked for unprotection because it was semiprotected. They argued that we shouldn't be slaves under the policy and let the protection stay. Because of this the normal template to be added to semiprotected pages didn't match reality ({{sprotected}}), so I created a new one. I know it's 100% against policy, but I felt it was better to have something in phase with reality than not. I won't complain if you delete this template, but then I would like to have some help how to define said "template". _→AzaToth 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If policy changes, it's easy enough to recreate. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, until the situation mentioned by AzaToth is resolved according to policy, when it ought to be speedy deleted according to policy. Pretending that policy violations do not exist is worse than violating them openly. --Geoffrey 03:11, 22 March 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.