Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27 edit

Template:ComicsCollabCandidate 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, I have added fields to {{Comicsproj}} which will display this info. No longer used in any pages. Hiding Talk 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --WikiSlasher 05:39, 1 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:ComicsCollabOld 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, I have added fields to {{Comicsproj}} which will display this info. No longer used in any pages. Hiding Talk 21:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --WikiSlasher 05:39, 1 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:Wookieepedia 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 0 consensus // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) The template isn't used in any articles. Also, see discussion below, about the WikiFur template, and citing external wikis. Robocracy 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comments at the WikiFur discussion. Encourages the use of unreliable sources. -- NORTH ^talk 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't look like this is a source template, but rather a template containing a message for GFDL reasons alone. The message is necessary when a significant portion of text originates from Wookieepedia in order to comply with the GFDL. This is NOT a template for article sources.-- Ned Scott 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. EVula 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the issue as I see it is not about encouraging people to use unreliable sources, which is against Wikipedia rules anyway (so unreliable stuff transwiki-ed into Wikipedia would just get taken right back out anyways, with or without this template). The real issue is to help keep track of the page edit history, which is has always been important in Wikipedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not used in any articles and per nom. Axem Titanium 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author attribution template that is used on several talk pages. Of course, the attribution should also be given in the edit summary, but I don't see what's wrong with using this template. Kusma (討論) 15:13, 1 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:Congress box 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused.—Markles 15:11, 27 October 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:Meta 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! // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self reference, and not a particularly useful one at that. 80.41.204.69 09:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Serves a purpose not filled by other templates in Category:Interwiki link templates. This deletion nomination is 80.41.204.69's only two edits; was someone not logged in properly? Slambo (Speak) 10:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account because it's a hassle and I have a dynamic IP. You may have seen me around somewhere, but it's really irrelivent. 80.41.215.12 13:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep - as above. Also, before suggesting things for deletion, try to get a better handle on what is and is not useful here at Wikipedia. This is a very useful template, particularly since Meta has a great deal of administrative content. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is useful, especially in the Wikipedia namespace, where self reference is irrelevent. -- kenb215 talk 06:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and closing this debate. --Cat out 16:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful - some pages in the Wikipedia namespace have associated meta pages. --WikiSlasher 05:42, 1 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:HELLO! 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 that it was already deleted. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content is only one word; has only one link; non-encyclopedic. Suggest delete. Ling.Nut 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I think someone needs to be shown how to find the template sandbox. Xtifr _tälk 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly delete this, it is faster to type out the contents of the template than it is to transclude it. {{HELLO!}} = 10 characters, Ignore = 6 characters --WikiSlasher 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Also, it is only transcluded on the talk page of the author, as shown here.And substing it would add five more letters to type 24.20.69.240 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH ^talk 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.
Incredibly Speedy Delete Useless template, likely an experiment. --Ssbohio 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G2 Test page. EVula 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G2; tagged as such. --ais523 09:24, 2 November 2006 (U T C)

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:Infobox_idol 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 to delete. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant; musical artist template would be better suited for this purpose. It adds very little (uneccessary) information to the existing template and is of questionable quality. Shiori 23:23, 27 October 2006

Comment Recommend turnover to Infobox Musical Artist on all articles using this template if this is to be TFD. Other than that, my feelings on this template are neutral. --CJ Marsicano 04:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As one of the current maintainers of the musical artist template, I recuse myself, but I would like to point out the the idol template was nominated earlier this month: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 12#Template:Infobox idol. The result then was no consensus, but the argument there is probably still relevant. And it seems a little unreasonable to renominate quite this quickly. Xtifr _tälk 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, didn't realize it had been nominated earlier. The argument down there seems a moot point, as horoscope, blood type, etc. is content in the main part of the page, and only serves to clutter the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiori (talk • contribs)
  - That information can be removed from the article if it's already in the infobox. I should point out that a similar charge has been laid against the musical artist infobox for several of its fields (e.g. DOB), which can't be removed from the article per MoS:BIO. So, as you can imagine, I'm not exactly thrilled with the line of reasoning. :) Xtifr _tälk 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Completely unnecessary and redundant to the musical artist template. The fact that the same non-notable information that is available in the template is in the articles is not relevant; it should be removed from the articles as well. Shannernanner 07:04, 29 October 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:WikiFur 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 no consensus // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not helpful and the template is not used. An article isn't reliable if it references other Wikis as sources (when Wikifur uses Wikipedia as a source, articles can be circularly defined), this template is only used in one article, and it gives the false impression that WikiFur is associated with Wikipedia. Robocracy 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's used on three pages - correctly on two talk pages and incorrectly on one article page. When WikiFur uses Wikipedia as a source, it is noted with {{wikipedia}} on our end. If you really think the template should go, I don't have a huge problem with that, but it should be replaced with text noting the origin of the material, per the requirements of the GFDL. You might also want to consider Template:Wookieepedia; the WikiFur template was created because it was in existance already. GreenReaper 04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy does not allow external Wikis to be cited as sources. This is especially true since the template is only used in one article and, as you just pointed out, it doesn't even belong there. The same reasoning applies to the Wookiepedia template which should be removed as well. Robocracy 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Encourages the use of unreliable sources. -- NORTH ^talk 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Unreliable sources are a content issue addressable by improvement of the problem article(s). Attempting to enforce the reliability standard by deleting this template doesn't seem in keeping with the collaborative nature of the project. I'd like to see another rationale before deletion. This one sets a bad precedent, the way I see it. --Ssbohio 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're disputing the Wikipedia policy of not citing external wikis? If so, you should leave a comment on the page about reliable sources. I think it makes sense, because not all Wikis are watched as closely or moderated as objectively as Wikipedia. If Wikipedia policy says external wikis are unreliable sources, then templates which encourage the use of such unreliable sources should be removed. Case in point: Imagine if there was a template which said, "This article uses Original Research from User:Robocracy." You see my point? My original research may be collaborative, but it's not reliable. Robocracy 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't look like this is a source template, but rather a template containing a message for GFDL reasons alone. The message is necessary when a significant portion of text originates from WikiFur in order to comply with the GFDL. -- Ned Scott 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains no content from Wikifur. In the user pages where WikiFur is used, it's used under the template, template messages, a userbar that offers quick access to templates. As you can see, WikiFur is listed under article sources. Even if it weren't meant specifically for sourcing articles, there is no conceivable case where anyone would need to cite text from WikiFur other than as a source for information. In fact, I'm going to remove the WikiFur template from that userbar and from the article where it doesn't belong, and then check and see if the template is even used at all. Robocracy 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, removing the WikiFur and Wookieepedia templates from the template messages template, now only a handful of pages link to both, and again, it's just people hand-writing the template messages template. Also, in case I wasn't clear about what I meant about citing text from WikiFur: WikiFur isn't really much of a broad or relevant subject for an encyclopedia. So, it's inconceivable to think that we'd ever have to cite it, to discuss WikiFur as a subject, and if we did, their GFDL license wouldn't matter because it would fall under fair use. The only case where their GFDL license would come into play is if we used their article for Wikipedia content, which, as clarified, goes against Wikipedia policy. Robocracy 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not using any of their article content, then ok lets delete this. However, using their content is not against Wikipedia policy... I don't believe you understand correctly how the GFDL works. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this message

If we were using their content it would have to be sourced. In other words, they would have to cite sources for their content for it to make a proper transition to Wikipedia. If they had nothing but original research then that would mean we wouldn't be importing any of their content, regardless of any of these details.

If we were using their content in some sort of quote context in, say, writing an article about them or some other situation like that, fair use would NOT be an option. If we can properly license the content so that it can be used via GFDL, even if it's a single sentence, then we would be required to use that license. Fair use is a last resort on Wikipedia.

Does anyone actually know what parts we are actually using that comes from these wikis? -- Ned Scott 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, found my answer: Ursa Major Awards is an article imported from WikiFur, and it's properly cited with a source. -- Ned Scott 08:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the issue as I see it is not about encouraging people to use unreliable sources, which is against Wikipedia rules anyway (so unreliable stuff transwiki-ed into Wikipedia would just get taken right back out anyways, with or without this template). The real issue is to help keep track of the page edit history, which is has always been important in Wikipedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We really shouldn't be using content from WikiFur, and since we aren't, this template is just free advertising. "Helping keep track of the page edit history" means absolutely nothing to me; that's what the history does. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the template doesn't exist, Wikipedia won't have a chance keep track of the edit history from the other wiki, because there won't be any way of telling where the information came from! For example, let's say that the trans-wikied article was properly cited and everything, but it was a copyright violation. Then, the user who created the trans-wikied article could easily get nabbed with the stigma of being a plagiarist, when in fact it was a different user on the other wiki. There could be easily be plenty of other reasons why you might want to have a quick, easy way to see that there is actually a "hidden" edit history on the other wiki. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, attribution template for another GFDL wiki, used on talk pages. Kusma (討論) 15:23, 1 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.