Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

September 25 edit

Template:Infobox Town DE imp 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{Infobox Town DE}} now that optional parameters for imperial measurements have now been included in that template - Bob 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Delete as per nom. Markussep 08:22, 26 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:GEDSBSchoolsDefunct 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely limited use template for articles that could simply be included under Category:Defunct schools. The template is not necessary for any informational or navigational purpose. No similar template seems to exist for any other schools in any other school district or area. Agent 86 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely limited use. Chrisbrl88 06:57, 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:Ann anime 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spamming templates Zuhnny 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)— Zuhnny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep - used in a lot of artiles as Anime News Network is a useful and generally reliable resource for anime credits and other information like dates and episode titles etc. This TFD is also Zuhnny's sole registered contribution to Wikipedia. Shiroi Hane 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Serves the same function as similar templates for Computer and Video Games, in that it's a good starting point for searches related to the subject. Also useful to WP editors looking for references. --tjstrf 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Extremely common link to a site that provides a good deal of additional information. ANN is very commonly used as a source in many articles. Linking to them is to provide the reader with source info and/or valuable additional information. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep A useful template. No reason was given for it's removal, and loosing it could only be disruptive. Hewinsj 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator only has three edits on Wikipedia, and they are to nominate the template for deletion. -- Ned Scott 22:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from OC The link template is no different then {{imdb title}} and other external link templates. WP:ANIME was also made aware of it when this set of templates were being created. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet I'll also like to add that the deletion of this template won't remove the ANN links from anime and manga related articles. But it does provide a consistent format for such links, which is the purpose of having a template in the first place. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. This was speedy closed by a non-admin a bit ago. I'd say it was a valid close, but the guy had nearly no edits, and as such may not meet WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions's requirements. I can't reclose it since I offered an opinion. Any admins care to weigh in on the appropriateness of this? --tjstrf 01:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination by a WP:SPA. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I agree with User CyberSkull's consensus and my own personal opinion is that Anime News Network is indeed reliable source and that I regularly use it as my first source when I am looking up information on voice actors or seiyuu to post for an anime character. -Adv193 02:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The template is useful and its deletion would be disruptive. Dekimasu 08:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per disruptiveness, is reliable. Merosonox 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep very usefull. Messing up articles , can this be closed? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:04, 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:Globalize/Catholic 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 tentatively keep. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused, and also violates WP:NPOV. This is the only Christian denomination with its own "Globalize" template, and there is already a {{Globalize/Christianity}} tag (which itself is only used on one article) that could serve just as well. Delete. Aaron 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This template does not violate WP:NPOV. A similar template dealing with the Muslim world was reccomended for deletion and ended up staying. The log for that particular template is located here. Chrisbrl88 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: That "debate" (which got exactly one comment) includes a link to direct proof that some of these "Globalize" series of templates are intentional WP:POINT violations. --Aaron 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure that I understand how tagging an article as having a Catholic point of view violates NPOV. In fact tagging such an article should have the result that it is editted up to Wikipedia standards of neutral pint of view. It may be true that the {{Globalize/Christianity}} tag is adequate, but given the large number of articles that are taken directly from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia, some thought might be put to its employment. But I am chastened by Mango's comment on Sept. 22nd that while it is important "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." I agree that such issues should be raised on the talk page, and that all-too-frequently editors place templates on pages without detailing the issues on the talk page. Will the use of such templates as this assist us? Yes, if the editors don't otherwise describe the problems. No, if we can be a conscientious, detail-oriented group of editors, especially when placing templates. Bejnar 03:07, 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.

French commune infoboxes 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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the expanded {{French commune}} template. They are also unused. Bob 18:51, 25 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:League of Ireland teamlist 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:FAI League already exists and has been used for several years. This new template does not carry as much information and, IMO, is not layed out as well. There is absolutely no need for it Dodge 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication. Qwghlm 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Redundant. Chrisbrl88 05:32, 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:May Offend edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:NDT and CSD #G4. >Radiant< 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by User:Clawed without a nomination reason. --ais523 13:40, 25 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete, as there doesn't seem to be a nom reason I'll place one here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Disclaimers seem to have been deleted here historically, as well (I won't repeat the arguments now, as that will probably be done by the other contributors). --ais523 13:40, 25 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete, serves no use that doesn't violate guidelines at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. In the alternative, place it on every article in Wikipedia, as anything may offend someone! :) -- Xtifr _tälk 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save, This template does not censor, it simply serves as a warning for articles that may offend. Also provides a compromise when someone complains of objectionable images, sparking a talk war. Look at the talk page for feces and you'll see what I mean. Wikipedia has warnings when there are spoilers for a movie, why not let people know that they might see a picture of a steaming pile of shit when they scroll down? That was the intent behind this template - to let people know they might see something they wont like. It does not censor in any way. Chrisbrl88 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr. --Aaron 20:52, 25 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:MLB team2 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another old unused MLB template. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 25 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:MLB see also 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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Not sure what the story was with these but they've all been around since August 2005 and have been unused for as long as I know. If someone wants to adopt, you're welcome to them... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unused. Chrisbrl88 05:33, 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.