Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 20

< November 19	November 21 >

November 20 edit

Template:Nutritionalvalue 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 close; nomination is very confused on how templates work. --humblefool ® 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word in English language as "nutritionalvalue" and therefore the concocted word "nutritionalvalue" is not verifiable, not notable and flat out nonsense. Additionally, this is just an incomplete template that servers no purpose and it is misleading in its current state as any nutritional amounts are only "recommended" and not absolute amounts and as such should be supported by sources and references and should indicate if they are RDI for male, female, child, infant, etc.--Mike Sorensen 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What the heck? Template titles are almost NEVER notable. And what do you mean, the information is only reccommended? It is an objective fact how much of something a food contains. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Amarkov. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia and not "Make-it-yourself pedia"If we go by your "what the heck" guidelines then we will open doors to more spam, and ignorance, as it will allow people to create their own nonsense words and then claim that they should be in wikipedia because they don't have to be notable nor conform to standarts of English language.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as being misleading the template contains info such as "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" which is a nonsense because the 133% is at best a recommended nutritional amount as stated by some regulatory or advisory panel or group. As those guidelines vary from country to country and from one research paper to another, (not even mentioning from one human being to another) stating any numbers in a template about nutritional values should be supported by references . The word "recommended" , that is not even mentioned here, is rather important in this case. Therefore in its current state the template is misleading and useless. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with English words "Nutritional Value" and there is no need to create some concatenations of those words.--Mike Sorensen 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I love this. Allowing people to make templates whose TITLES are not notable will open Wikipedia to spam? As for your "misleading", that can be easily changed to specify who is doing the recommending. Deleting templates because of their TITLES? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed, the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You "just noticed that the template ALREADY SPECIFIES who it is giving the information". In that case please show me, using the links provided in the template, a statement that specifies intake of "Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 2 mg - 133%" . An intake of any nutrient is recommended for specific, age, gender and health status. So male, female, child, etc. will all have different RDI for every nutrient including Riboflavin. --Mike Sorensen 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination cites invalid reason to delete. At worst it should be renamed, but camel case NutritionalValue isn't a significant improvement. Let it be. pschemp | talk 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as an invalid reason for deletion, and someone explain what notability and verifiability mean to the nom. I'd hate to see what he thinks of such horrific names as {{nsd}} or even {{disambig}}. Those aren't even real words either. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Concocted words, incorrect spelling, and inaccurate or misleading information are very valid reasons for deletion, or at best for a major rework. Do you sometimes wonder why wikipedia is being ridiculed and criticized ? Because it contains nonsense words and incorrect information. Why don't we call this template Eyuiyhuygtsefwse ? This seems as good of a word as any other nonsense concocted one.--Mike Sorensen 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as {{nsd}} or {{disambig}} are concerned they are just code words used for wiki flow and organization and not a core content of the encyclopedia.
Please see our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. In particular, we are not a source of medical advice, and that includes nutritional values for e.g. diet purposes. That is not to say we shouldn't list them, but not using the exact terms as a medic would is not a reason for deletion. (Radiant) 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be ill-advised. Template names are not required to be standard English words, because they do not display as such to readers but are only used "behind the scenes" by the editors. Anyway, "nutritionalvalue" can easily be interpreted by readers. Minor alterations in spelling usually do not turn words into nonsense. --Metropolitan90 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, I honestly have no idea what the hell the nominator is on about. "It isn't a word, and therefore shouldn't be deleted"? What the...? {{Moresources}}? {{Sect1911}}? {{Bioguide}}? {{cleanup}}? {{copypaste}}? {{TotallyDisputed}}? {{Expandsection}}? Want me to keep going? Seriously... per everyone above. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:07, 21 November 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 Speedy Delete pschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rubbish Edit edit

Not necessary, rather nonsensical, and could be WP:BALLS itself! ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Attack template that characterizes edits as rubbish Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per attack (I've warned the user as well). Cbrown1023 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 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 Speedy deletepschemp | talk 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Child Edit edit

This is not necessary, could be divisive and is often untrue. WP:CHILD has nothing to do with the quality of edits made by minors, it just concerns their privacy. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as divisive attack template that violates WP:AGF. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per attack. Cbrown1023 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 November 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:Expert-Medicine 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. --humblefool® 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made irrelevant by the generic Expert-portal. See Hepatology for an example of it in use. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that one, fine by me, apparently I was a bit ahead of this evolution. I'll try to AWB-replace it before it get's deleted.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently that has been done, so let's nuke it!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm puzzled by the fervour of this discussion. The two templates ask for different things to be done. And besides, why would you recruit an expert from a portal? Recruiting an expert from outside Wikipedia makes much more sense to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We can always update the wording on the expert-portal template (I'll do so after I write this comment). Thing is, we need a generic template as medicine isn't the only subject that requires experts. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:57, 21 November 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:UK supermarkets 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 keep. --humblefool® 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major company pov.Longdong UK 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea what "major company pov" is supposed to mean... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless the "big four" classification can be dropped. It is somewhat POV. I will edit to this effect, but it remains to be seen if the edit stays or gets reverted... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is quite neutral to describe a business as "big"[1]—read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation. This debate should be on Template talk:UK supermarkets about how to reach a consensus on the wording, not to delete the template altogether. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- read Supermarkets in the United Kingdom for the explanation - that's not even referenced! Please do not revert to the previous wording. It's definitely POV. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99.9% delete delete now. Jer10 95 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the comments above. toresbe 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be legit --T-rex 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is nominator's only contribution to Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 November 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:Namespace of associated page 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 and replace with Magic Words. --humblefool® 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating {{PTalk}}, {{PWikipedia talk}}, {{PPortal talk}}, {{PHelp talk}}, {{PCategory talk}}, {{PTemplate}}, {{PTemplate talk}}, and any of the associated templates I missed. Redundant with {{ARTICLESPACE}}. Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could you fix up the deletion notices so that other templates, such as {{WP Adventist}} are not included in cat:Templates for deletion. Cheers, Ansell 09:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with magic words as appropriate, and delete. Some of these templates are broken anyway (PTalk for instance), and even the nominated one forgot about the Portal namespace. --ais523 09:50, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Weak delete. Looks redundant. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after its current uses have been fixed up. Ansell 11:07, 27 November 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.