Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 May 6)
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6, 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 redirect to Republic of China to preserve history.

Template:Republic of China infobox edit

Template:Republic of China infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant to {{China infobox}}, which is a single-article infobox (this one is, too). Brendenhull 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move it out of the template namespace to keep the significant edit and talk page history and mark it as obsolete. SchmuckyTheCat 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it's redundant with a non-existing infobox, but it's orphaned (and redundant) by the migration of the Republic of China article to Infobox country. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, this template is not included in any main space article. Second, this is just a case recreation of {{Infobox country}}. Joelito (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a recreation, it's orphaned. When the article Republic of China was migrated FROM this infobox to Infobox country, this was the basis. So this isn't a recreation, it's the source material. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And therefore its edit history and the discussion on its talk page have to be preserved. They explain how the infobox (which is now merged from the template back to the article) has become what it is like. — Instantnood 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed recreation because {{Infobox country}} is older. Joelito (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Mark as Obsolete if some want to preserve the edit and talk history. As long as this single-use template doesn't find it's way back into to the article.—MJCdetroit 23:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Republic of China to preserve page history--Jiang 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Mark as Obsolete / Redirect - Unused Template, either action should be done. The second action to be used if anyone wants the history to be kept for some reason. Hunter 07:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Mark as Obsolete per above -- Tangotango 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move out of template space, or redirect to Republic of China for the sole purpose of preserving history. Falphin 23:18, 7 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 Circeus 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:News story edit

Template:News story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Orphan and lacks usefulness Joelito (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it performs no useful function and can easily be recreated on a page. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Hunter 07:10, 7 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 Circeus 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridges of the Mississippi River edit

Template:Bridges of the Mississippi River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obsoleted by Template:Crossings navbox, and no longer used. Recommend speedy deletion, or just deletion if speedy isn't possible. —Rob (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and obselete (so no future usage). It doesn't look very divisive or inflammatory, so no speedy. SeventyThree(Talk)
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 these two, keep {{cite newsgroup}} Circeus 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newsgroup reference edit

I'm nominating:

for deletion. According to WP:RS, these should never be used: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Apparently they're only in use at one article, Out Run 2019, and an old AfD talk page. Those can be subst'ed, while the templates are deleted and their mention removed from Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. Melchoir 11:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Just because it cannot be used as a primary source of information does not mean it cannot be used at all. Might be reused some day who knows? -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for first (although they can only rarely be used to assert the truth of the statement, they do provide evidence that the statement existed. Archimedes Plutonium could legitimately use these templates.), but No Comment on Google, as they reconfigured their server a number of times, and don't appear to offer "permanent" links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: okay, if they're useful in some cases, why don't we do the following instead of my original proposal:
  • Comment: nuts, I just now became aware of {{Cite newsgroup}}, which apparently replaced {{Newsgroup reference}} a week ago but doesn't appear on Generic citations. It should share the same fate. Melchoir 21:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: made obsolete by {{cite newsgroup}}, which should not be deleted. (Whilst the content of posts to Usenet might not be reliable when used as evidence, the post itself is the best evidence for its own existence. If we say "So-and-so said on Usenet in 2001 that…" we had better be able to point to some archive which proves that such a post was made.) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep {{cite newsgroup}} per Phil (and don't move it). --Ligulem 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Phil; {{newsgroup reference}} and {{newsgroup reference Google}} are definitely redundant. Strong keep {{cite newsgroup}}. News group references are not necessarily reliable sources, but they are useful in instances of direct quoting from newsgroups, and in articles of people who regularly use or used newsgroups (such as Arthur Rubin suggested). I can think of at least one person who verifiably and prolifically used news groups, specifically alt.fan.terry.pratchett, and specifically the author Terry Pratchett.
    I agree and disagree with some of the above suggestions, though: 1) Redundant once "newsgroup reference" and "newsgroup reference google" are deleted. 2) I see no reason why not to; in all honesty, every single form of citation template and external linking template should have a warning. 3) I don't see why it should be recategorised; it is a citation template, especially if used to direct quote. If it's moved into external link templates, I guess {{cite web}} should be moved there as well. No reason why, however, it can't be in both categories at once. 4) See 3. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{newsgroup.*}} as per above. Strong Keep {{cite newsgroup}}s as per the three last comments. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-05-09 06:53
  • So, I'm hearing now that newgroup posts are acceptable as primary sources? Because, and sincerely, we're going to have to amend WP:RS for this; the current language could hardly reject it more strongly. Melchoir 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're hearing that linking to a newsgroup post is sometimes necessary and using an appropriate template to format the link properly and organise the associated metadata is a Good Thing. Why don't you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down and chill for a bit. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine for an article's External links, but the current form of the template encourages misuse in the References section, where Usenet never belongs. (By contrast, {{cite web}} can be used for purposes explicitly sanctioned at WP:RS.) Just look at the current usage. Melchoir 08:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In what way exactly encourages this template misuse? Why don't you put a comment into a noinclude into the template page and state what goes and what doesn't? It's as simple as that. --Ligulem 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can only speculate that people notice that it's called "cite X" and that it's in Category:Citation templates, so they conclude that it's okay to use as a citation. Well, I'll do as you suggest. Melchoir 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm. You could also put some short explanations/caveats into category:citation templates. With a link to WP:RS or whatever. I believe that name "cite" and "citation templates" are meant rather from a technical standpoint. We shouldn't infer too much meaning from those names. --Ligulem 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{newsgroup.*}} as per above. Strong Keep {{cite newsgroup}} as per above. — CJewell (talk to me) 02:19, 11 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 Circeus 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:War on Terrorism edit

Templates entitled with a propaganda term can never be made neutral. (original proposal by De mortuis...) Añoranza 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's the name of the war given to it by the guys fighting it, not some POV term. --Rory096 08:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given by the guys of one side who sent others to fight. Añoranza 08:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, would you rather have an Arabic name? What would you propose we call it? It's completely in line with the name of our article on War on Terrorism --Rory096 09:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda terms should not be used in general, regardless which side they are from. Añoranza 10:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the issue isn't about the content of the template, but the name of the template. It should be renamed, or placed between quotation marks, (as it is now) Sfacets 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are issues over the content of the template: there is no public consensus over what is, and isn't, part of the "War on Terrorism." For example, debate is raging in the U.S. media, government, and academic circles over whether the Iraq War is part of the greater WoT. For Wikipedia to declare in a template that it is in fact part of the WoT is POV at best and a violation of WP:NOR at worst. --Hyperbole 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep till someone comes up with an acceptable title, then ReName. US War on Terror ? -- PFHLai 09:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events thought by Wikipedia editors to be part of the U.S. War on Terror" might reflect the actual content of the template --Hyperbole 19:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe a renaming is necessary though. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, perhaps to "International Terrorism Conflict"? SCHZMO ✍ 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No rename is needed, it is named War on Terrorism because this is the most commonly used name to refer to this conflict, rather than others such as "Global Struggle against Violent Extremism" or the above stated "International Terrorism Conflict." If these names should eventually surpass War on Terror in usage, that is when we rename. Just like we should rename the cold war template to WW3 should that name ever become popular. But not before. Rangeley 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a widely criticized propaganda term not a universally used and neutral term like cold war. Añoranza 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't the common name, then what is? --Rory096 20:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename as it is a controversial propaganda issue not suitable for a category (unlike the article by the same name). --Arny 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The War on Terrorism article gives the term a fair treatment, and this template is an effort to link to things related to it. Propaganda or not, "war on terror" is a real, common term that applies to a specific set of events. I'd love to rename this template to something more neutral, but, regrettably, such a term does not exist. And it isn't the responsibility of Wikipedia to make up a new term for it just because we don't like the one that's being used. ~ Booyabazooka 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOR. It is the Wikipedia editors who appear to be deciding what is and isn't part of the "War on Terrorism" - for example, they've included the 2005 Bali Bombings, a terrorist attack by Indonesians against Indonesians, as part of the American WoT. Since for any given entry, there is no public consensus over whether it is or isn't part of the WoT, the category can never be anything other than original research. --Hyperbole 18:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It prompted the Indonesian government to declare solidarity in the War on Terrorism, inevitably making it as much a part of the war as 9-11. Rangeley 01:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? --Hyperbole 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful, but perhaps needs scaling down. --Knucmo2 00:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only common term for these events. I tried to think of a replacement term and failed. Furthermore, as to Hyperbole's complaint, any OR element as to why an article does or does not include the template should be discussed at the article, with any OR concern dealt with there as one would for any other template. I do agree with Knucmo2 that it could be scaled down slightly, but that's not a cause for deletion. JoshuaZ 06:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - name is appropriately in quotes to show that it's just a name. -- Tangotango 11:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful template that helps organize articles in the encyclopedia. Opponents seem politically motivated. The name is hardly "original research" since it's a common phrase used outside of WP. Nhprman
  • Strong Keep, as there is no alternative. There is a War on Terrorism going on. It may not be the same as say, the American Revolutionary War but none the less several wars have been started and are being fought under its name. Falphin 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless someone can suggest something better. 'Terrorism' is a bit of a catch-all for anyone we don't like, but that's the name given to it. It's no less accurate than 'war to end all wars'. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although this name is acceptable, to make a list of conflicts that are alleged to be part of this WOT is WP:OR unless we can provide sources. On the talk page of invasion of Iraq it has become evident that many organisations and media, do not adopt the term for Iraq. Many other mentioned conflicts surprise me also as being part of the WOT (Chechnya?). As long as the list is not substantiated it should not be on Wikipedia.  Nomen Nescio 11:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It definately does not reflect a world view, but there is no other commonly used term to refer to the underlying topics. I will change my vote to rename if there are solid proposals to do so. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the name may appear to be propaganda based, it is still in fact the name. Since it does appear in H.J Res 114 authorizing force as well as UK Parliament debate and vote over Iraq. It also is the name on the medals, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, given to soldiers fghting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Considering Pervez Musharraf president of India, the UK Parliament and US government all use the terms on official scales, countries who make up a majority of the countries who's official languages are english, I really don't understand the debate.--Zer0faults 19:08, 12 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 Circeus 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peruvian Andean Parliament election, 2006 edit

Template:Peruvian Andean Parliament election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used in any article, content merged into Template:Peruvian legislative election, 2006. Gabbec 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer used or necessary, author's request for deletion. SCHZMO ✍ 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per request of the creator. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gabbec. Falphin 23:19, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_6&oldid=1138690833"