Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 10

< May 9	May 11 >

May 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain infobox edit

And others edit

Template:Korea infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ireland infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Irish Free State infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MiraLuka 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:22, 14 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iloveminun edit

Delete per nom. Joe 22:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MiraLuka 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless DannyM 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is the point of this template? Afonso Silva 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Douglasr007 03:03, 14 May 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 moot - speeeeeedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokemon Template by Iloveminun edit

Delete per nom. Joe 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is determined worthwhile by others to restyle this into a bottom-of-the-page box. Otherwise, Delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to outright Delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. MiraLuka 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam (simple as) and warn creator DannyM 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:24, 14 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokemon Anime edit

It can safely be said that each of MIB's adjectives applies entirely here; hence, delete. Joe 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If it were to be actually used, it could cause us trouble. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MiraLuka 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete worst than useless DannyM 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible BJAODN -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But yes, please get it to BJAODN Russia Moore 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Delete. This is the worst template I've ever seen. --Coredesat 04:15, 17 May 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 moot - speeeeeedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Page Started by Iloveminun edit

Template:Page Started by Iloveminun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template being used to assert ownership of articles (currently only Category:PokéFans) and add a decorative fair-use image to non-encyclopedic articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete per nom. Joe 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KILL IT WITH FIRE'. Needs to be banished asap. Night Gyr 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Delete delete delete MiraLuka 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete egocentric, and a waste of space DannyM 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- I dont believe people should be able to take ownership of articles on Wikipedia. 24.50.211.226 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Douglasr007 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Russia Moore 07:22, 14 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collaborative pop song edit

Delete per nom. Joe 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if current inclusions are changed to regular text. Afonso Silva 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please subst the pages that are using this template before deleting it. It is not just a text template; it also automatically adds articles to the appropriate categories.--M @r ē ino 14:46, 17 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WowTurkey Image Copyright edit

Template:WowTurkey Image Copyright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a {{noncommercial}} license masking as conditional free use. If this was actualy used on an image it would have to be deleted, so it serves no purpose. --Sherool (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sherool's fine analysis. Joe 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --mboverload 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sherool, as images of this license type aren't allowed on Wikipedia anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, spam link DannyM 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:31, 14 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HurricaneWarning edit

Template:HurricaneWarning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Even as WP:ASR counsels that one needn't necessarily to look with disfavor on self-referential templates (cf., articles), the second person nature of this template is surely a strike against its continued inclusion. Notwithstanding that, the template seems to have been created for, and to serve, solely humanitarian (i.e., unencyclopedic [assuming arguendo that we are to be disinterested in the external consequences of our editing]) concerns (toward which proposition I'd adduce the template talk page). I am eminently confident that no legal claim could successfully be essayed against Wikipedia by an individual who depended upon Wikipedia for information during a hurricane (if only in view of Wikipedia:General disclaimer, to which the box infra to each page links automatically, and, as importantly, GD's Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer subpage). It could be said, I suppose, that the "Residents" directive may be omitted (removing the POV and unencyclopedic material), leaving a template that comports substantially with policy, but I don't think we ought to abide our creating an event-specific template that essentially serves only to advise one that the topic of the article is a current event (we've already the {{current}} tag) and that Wikipedia is not a breaking news outlet. Hence, delete. Joe 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Joe 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't just a matter of legal claims but our responsibility to users. As has been evidenced many times recently, people do read Wikipedia and take what happens here seriously. Errors, both good and bad faith will occur as the natural course of development of an article. While this may not seem like a big deal for most articles, it is prudent and a good faith gesture to inform users of this possibility especially for articles referring to pressing events. For an example of how much an article on this subject can change as more information is added and digested, please see the History of the Hurricane Katrina article right during the peak. While we were eventually able to catch them, we did experience the addition of a lot of rumors and hearsay which eventually proved false (not to mention a lot of bad faith sneaky vandalism) Sure, it may be enough from a legal standpoint not to remind our users of that (though in today's litigation happy society I doubt it). But I believe that it is simply the right thing to do. It's not a matter of whether we consider ourselves to be a breaking news outlet, Wikipedia becomes cited as a source more and more often these days. If you feel the need to justify the existance of this template with policy, consider it an extension of good faith. -Loren 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a memebr of the Tropical cyclones Wikiproject - this isn't as much a legal disclaimer as a courtesy to readers. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 17:42 UTC
- Comment If the primary purpose of the template is to aid/advise readers in a humanitarian fashion (as I think it is), then the template exists to serve goals that are, IMHO, wholly unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the project (the death of a few readers--or even valuable contributors--and the concomitant bad press is likely to have only a de minimis deleterious effect on the project). Joe 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Joelito (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loren. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (see also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_26#Template:Suicidehelp) MiraLuka 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: With all due respect, I believe this situation is quite different from the suicide template. That template addresses a reader who presumebly already had suicidal tendencies before coming into Wikipedia. Presumably this person could very well have committed suicide without reading Wikipedia. In the case of a hurricane related article however, misinformation in the article could very well prompt a person who was not initially in any danger into action (or inaction) that might in the worst case, result in the loss of their life. This is not neutrality. Striving for neutrality means that we strive to make Wikipedia reflect the world, not to change it (the same reasoning behind the policy on neologism). Therefore I believe the existance of this template is in line with our goal of maintaining neutrality. -Loren 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Loren's point with respect to Wikipedia's affecting the outside world is well-made, but so too, IMHO, is the suicide template analogy; each template suggests to readers that they oughtn't to condition their external actions on something they find on Wikipedia. Surely many of our articles cause readers to take certain actions they would not, in the absence of the articles, take, but it is our role not to consider the external consequences of our editing; that is the best way we can attempt to remain neutral. Joe 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Commment: The difference between the templates is that the reader could very well have taken action in the suicide case without Wikipedia. Additionally, the hurricane template is in relation to the accuracy of the content of the article itself, and known shortcomings on our part, not the reader's. -Loren 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But should we then place disclaimers on the pages of politicians, so that we don't vote for them based on Wikipedia content? Or disclaimers on pages such as Arsenic, warning that the substance described is poisonous? I can think of any number of things we could make disclaimer templates for, but I for one don't want to see giant boxes on top of every article is Wikipedia. MiraLuka 04:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Apples and oranges. If anyone is dumb enough to eat anything they see on a Wikipedia article (especially a chemical substance), they probably would have done so without reading it. Anyone getting killed following erroneous information on a hurricane article on the other hand probably would not have done so had they not read it. -Loren 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        CommentAnd if anyone is dumb enough to get killed because they used Wikipedia as their only source of knowledge, well... MiraLuka 07:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --mboverload 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. We're here to give out facts, not advice, and if we take out the advice from the template, all we're left with is a disclaimer, which is against policy. I also find this template kind of insulting to our readers intelligence, so George Carlin's policy is appropriate here. Night Gyr 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And the fact of the matter is, while the ultimate goal is to give out facts, we often fall short of that goal. -Loren 05:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the template's wording, I think a delete is in order, even though Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates is a guideline, not a policy. Circeus 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loren. Seems the right thing to do, and I found it quite heartening to see it used in 2005 as various hurricanes made landfall. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. With the increasing importance of wikipedia, these warnings can be critical. Particularly as Wikipedia is not the most accurate thing out there. Loom91 09:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with Loom91- if the article about a hurricane becomes inaccurate, then we could be presenting people with inaccurate information which could cause deaths. Also- since Wikipedia is pretty high up in search engine rankings, people may go to an article on Wikipedia about a hurricane first due to Wikipedia's ranking. 24.50.211.226 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoping that a certain crassness won't be inferred from my response, and noting that I think there are other sufficient grounds for deletion that one's disagreeing with me on this point needn't compel one to support "keep"...concerns about the prospective loss of life are unencyclopedic. Loren's interpretation of how best we can avoid affecting external circumstances aside, as encyclopedia editors (and, for some of us, as people), to be properly disinterested, we must be wholly uninterested in whether people die having read inaccurate, incomplete, or old information on Wikipedia (where there is no legal culpability). Joe 22:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this should not be used in article space. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you suggest it be used, then? All the information is in the articles, after all. NSL E _(T+C) at 09:46 UTC (2006-05-15)
Keep, per Loren. -- RattleMan 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NSL E _(T+C) at 09:46 UTC (2006-05-15)
Strong keep. It is designed with the Wikipedia-illiterate in mind. While it may seem foolish to us, for those who get media references and come here just for information, it serves as a very useful warning for them not to rely on Wikipedia for emergency information, as it isn't very local (generally speaking) and not always up to the minute. Loom91 hit the nail on the head there. See also Template:StormWatch for a more general but similar warning for other events (mainly severe thunderstorms and tornadoes). CrazyC83 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as Loren and CrazyC83. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. QazPlm 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go review the No disclaimer Templates policy and maybe even start working to try to get that changed. This comment is without having first done that. On the face of it, a template to warn people that a fast changing and potentially hugely life threatening situation is not somehting they should rely on WP as a primary source for... seems like a very very very good idea. The alternative of not warning people seems like a very very bad idea. (while it is true that we are not in the advice business, the advice here is "don't rely on this source for fast moving news" ... clearly good and correct advice, self referential and therefore we're qualified to give it in this case!!!!) Strong Keep ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the chances of someone trying to sue Wikipedia for incorrect information are remote, having a template of this nature is not a bad idea. Looking back at the lessons from Hurricane Katrina, many, many users would come to Wikipedia to try to look for information about the storm. Hell, that's the way I got hooked here, while looking at info about Hurricane Emily. IIRC, USA Today used a death toll table very similar to the one at the Katrina article, so it is certain that other agencies and individuals are looking for information here; I fail to see how it is a bad idea to remind users about our limitations, aside from the nearly-invisible disclaimer. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess I'd say that self-referential templates, especially those that speak explicitly to users, are deprecated, such that the concern oughtn't to be whether their inclusion is a bad idea, but, instead, such inclusion is clearly a good idea. As I said above, the salutary effects of which most are writing and on which most are basing keeps are, I think, wholly unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the project (the death of a few readers--or even valuable contributors--and the concomitant bad press is likely to have only a de minimis deleterious effect on the project). I suppose I might infer from the many keeps that others simply disagree apropos of this, but I wonder if someone might at least make such disagreement explicit, lest I should continue to be confused by the keep rationale. Joe 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. --Coredesat 04:14, 17 May 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.