Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26 edit

Sock templates for meme vandals 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These unused templates categorise pages as sock puppets of ancient vandals such as WoW or WiC who are very often copied by meme vandals seeking to share in the notoriety or gain notice. They were deprecated in early October 2006 and deleted in late February 2007 (with no usage during that period), then recreated by FYA in late April 2007 as inaccurate shortcuts for proven sockpuppets ({{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}}). Both are currently unused. See Wikipedia:Deny recognition for the reasoning that led to their deprecation nearly eight months ago, which still applies today. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely delete as unnecessary and per WP:DENY. --Iamunknown 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for this shortcut. –Pomte 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Pomte. Jmlk17 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have categories to keep the sockpuppets in order. The standard indefblock templates work fine. YechielMan 23:36, 30 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Portuguese international ties 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. Picaroon (Talk) 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated information. Already in section of "International organizations" templates - Guilherme ^(talk) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as superfluous reverse navigation redundant to templates at the bottom of Portugal. –Pomte 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Pomte, but also just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:21, 28 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Texas Rangers 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary space-hogging template. Box comprises mostly redlinks; the few blue links in the template are easy enough to find within the article. Mr. Darcy talk

Comment - I hate to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, but note that Template:Chicago White Sox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Detroit tigers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Minnesota Twins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:New York Yankees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Red Sox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Template:St. Louis Cardinals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) all seem similar. We might want to consider all these as a group and consider posting a notice to WP:Baseball. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kinda split, but I will say that I'm a bit disturbed by the season analysis pages that are popping up. Yanksox 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a mess: full of broken links and no information. Jmlk17 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the red links and empty sections from this particular template. All of them can be reduced to just a few lines, so they won't take up much space, and there are a fair number of articles for each team, especially prolific ones like the Yankees. I think they can be kept and cleaned up for the navigational benefit. –Pomte 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the edits, it looks perfectly acceptable to me. matt91486 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the seasons are a work in progress. The rest is fine and is perfectly acceptable. Also, a note of size, if you're that paranoid it's taking up too much space (which I can't say it is), then there is always a hide option for the bottom season's menu that can easily be implemented. Templates for Deletion is not the right place to discuss this.--Borgarde^talk 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A nascent work in progress which will be expanded soon. I intend to start work on an article about the 2006 season (the game log is already complete) shortly. Caknuck 14:40, 28 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:db-unverifiable 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 delete. Kusma (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely empty as is, and we don't speedy delete for verifiability, so the tag is fairly useless in practice. If CSD policy changes concerning unverifiable content, we can recreate it then. —-badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as empty. Kusma (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:db-product 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 nuke from orbit. What is it with the baseless CSD templates this week? >Radiant< 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tag detailing an improper speedy deletion criteria, as products do not fall under CSD A7. Tag serves no legitimate purpose due to it being misleading. -—badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I created this template for use while I started doing NPP and should have read up on speedy deletion criteria and policy beforehand. Well, everybody makes mistakes early in their "Wikicareer". --Poeloq 14:31, 26 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Hairstyles 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has no purpose. Categories should be used instead. —Bensin 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree. Has no purpose whatsoever Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Booksworm. Jmlk17 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli 02:34, 27 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Riskofvandalism 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly box that applies to most of Wikipedia's articles. We don't want to draw extra attention to vandalism, nor violate WP:BEANS and WP:DENY. Delete. — Kusma (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the points above. It will just attract more vandalism instead of getting rid of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booksworm (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Apart from the fact that articles with big vandalism problems should get semi-protected, not have a tag calling attention to vandals... why would vandalism mean that you should read the talk page before changing things? -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. —dima /talk/ 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ALL Wikipedia articles are at risk of vandalism, so this template is redundant and unnecessary. — Wenli 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus it's recreated. Addhoc 15:48, 1 May 2007 (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 section.