Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 22

< September 21	September 23 >

September 22 edit

Template:Improve 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is very redundant. Every articles are in need of improvement, isn't that right? This template could be replaced with more specific templates. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even featured articles can be improved on - in other words, there isn't one article on Wikipedia that doesn't need improving. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it states the obvious. Cburnett 20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{cleanup}}. --ais523 11:59, 25 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete or redirect to cleanup. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's annoyed me every time I've seen it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too vague to be helpful. (No redirect to {{cleanup}}, which is also too vague to be helpful.) Angr 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. Chrisbrl88 07:11, 29 September 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:Gay National League 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template consists entirely of redlinks. One article had been created, but failed an AFD, and the same reasoning would apply to the others, were they to be created. The template is only used on one page, which mentions all the teams in the text. Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the editor really wants to push the issue of page creation for the teams, these could be red-linked on the page itself. There is no need for a template as of now. Irongargoyle 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. Chrisbrl88 07:11, 29 September 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:1913POV 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While neutrality is very important to wikipedia, I doubt we need individual templates for all the possible issues every single source might raise. I believe that this template is overly specific, and redundant with the pov tags we already have. Note for consideration: this template was created by a user with a troublesome editing history. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that we don't need individual templates for every single biased source, but it surely helps to have templates for sources, which are commonly used (just like Template:1911POV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). A search on newadvent.org shows a huge amount of results and I'd say, that a catholic view of 1911 does not satisfy WP:NPOV in many of those articles. Aecis, please note that you are supposed to comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Raphael1 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main point of this template is obviously to warn about a neutrality issue, but {{NPOV}} should just be used in those cases. Having specific issues raised on the article page is an inappropriate level of criticism. Mango juice^talk 20:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete:Highly POV in on itself, plus factually wrong when used in Criticism of Islam.Hkelkar 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Hkelkar. POV-pushing anti-Catholic hate template. --Aaron 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Meh, I wouldn't go as far as calling it anti-Catholic hate. T REX_speak 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved note from someone who came on this debate after going through all of Category:Wikipedia maintenence templates), there also exists {{Globalize/Catholic}}. 68.39.174.238 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kyaa the Catlord 14:27, 28 September 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:Theories of gravitation 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 with the promise of some TLC. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theme ring with insufficent cohesion, and grwon too large. Normally I'd suggest portalizing for templates with too much fat, but this links items which don't really belong together. Pjacobi 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a subject as complicated as gravitation, I certainly see a navigation template such as this being quite helpful. Clean off those "stub only" notes though. Irongargoyle 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too large and many items are loosely related. Nav templates should be used for articles of closer relation. Links of this sort should be done via "see also" and proper linking in context to the article. -- Ned Scott 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune, it is often useful to browse and find unexpected but still relevant links. Garthbarber 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but shouldn't that be something for a "See also" section? It seems nav boxes are getting a bit over-used these days. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean it up a little. Chrisbrl88 07:13, 29 September 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:JLO Men 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopaedic.--K4zem 10:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't give enough information; why isn't it encyclopaedic? --ais523 10:44, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

(Not necessarily that I'll !vote to keep it; it's just that 'Not encyclopaedic' is like just saying 'delete'; giving a reason will increase the chances of people agreeing with you.) --ais523 10:45, 22 September 2006 (U T C)

Delete. Well, *I* think it's unencyclopedic. We could have templates like this for every celebrity in theory, creating an endless barrage of navboxes. Totally worthless. I'm sure the articles in question would link to Jennifer Lopez, and from there, the other people could be found. Mango juice^talk 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the template allows for easy navigation through her personal life. Although I am biased since I created it, I think it should be kept. Behun 04:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jennifer Lopez's dating life may be worth mentioning in the article, but I don't think it's important enough to put a template about it. There's nothing unique about her to create a template for her and not other celebrities, and it would be chaotic to make templates like this for every star. --Cswrye 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, succession boxes aren't necessary for celeb dating. >Radiant< 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It gave me a good laugh though. --musicpvm 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please, please delete. A very bad use of nav boxes. Nav boxes should be used for articles more closely related, as the relation of these articles should be linked within the text in their proper context. -- Ned Scott 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing, but Delete. Not encyclopedic in its presentation at all.
Delete, utterly worthless. Angr 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SPEEDY ULTRA MEGA DELETE. Only one expression can possibly sum up my feelings on this template. That expression is: wtf? Chrisbrl88 07:15, 29 September 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:Heteronormativity 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del Yet another "POV-fixing" template that litters articles. There are zillions of reasons why an article may be biased, we don't have to litter them with templates, like, {{TooAmerican}}, {{UnderHinduismized}}, {{Whitewashing}}, {{ShamelessPromo}}, {{Historical Revisionism}} etc. If one has a problem with a particular kind POV, get themselves a task force, create a list and proceed. `'mikka (t) 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom mentioned, there's no need to have a seperate POV template for every controversial issue.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to {{unbalanced}}; there isn't a need for such a specific template. --ais523 10:20, 22 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete, don't redirect. We don't want to encourage the making of tags like this. The more specific one of these fix templates is, the more inflammatory it is. No need for this. Mango juice^talk 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I like the picture it uses -- a male and female figure on a wedding cake, but the man has a skirt and purse... Angr 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 12:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chrisbrl88 07:17, 29 September 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:CNN Squad 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently not used. Seems to be links of CNN news presenters and commentators that are formatted in such a way that they are in a sports team – a non-notable, silly way for a template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chrisbrl88 07:24, 29 September 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:FNC Squad 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently not used. Seems to be links of Fox News Channel news presenters and commentators that are formatted in such a way that they are in a sports team – a non-notable, silly way for a template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 05:20, 23 September 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 deleted. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games Cross Country Skiing edit

Speedy delete requested by author.

This is requested by the author. Speedy delete already in the talk seciton. Conflicts with Template:Olympic Games Cross country skiing. Chris 14:00, 22 September 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:Gettysburg Address/bliss edition 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 (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is source material, already found on Wikisource. This is a template that was moved from article space, but is not transcluded anywhere. If it's been substed somewhere, no big deal. I can't imagine why we need this, except maybe as an alternative to Loren ipsum, but no one seems to be using it that way... and you could say that for just about any block of text. Mango juice^talk 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already on Wikisource. --ais523 16:10, 22 September 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 Highway 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 del. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete in many ways by Template:Infobox road. No need to have this useless template, which is not used on any article. TMF ^{T - C} 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and also delete the redirect to it: {{Infobox highway}} --Bob 17:18, 27 September 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.