Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

December 27 edit

Template:Sudetenland 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely divisive and non-NPOV template created for unkown purposes. No one denies the fact that the area of Sudetenland was inhabited mainly by the German population and no one tries to whitewash it. Problem is the template includes almost only the articles relating to World War II and also shows a Nazi swastika. User who created it adds this template to articles about towns and villages of that region. Well, there were hundreds of municipalities in that area, it is then pointless to add it to every single one. Inclusion of all municipalities to this template isn't also possible, it would create a monstrous template. I believe this template may be changed somewhat but in its current state and behaviour of its creator it should be deleted. — Darwinek (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I definitely agree, it brings nothing less than a hot blood and extremely controversial content-disputes. Its placement into the current towns and villages, historical persons in the area of the Czech Republic with all its flags and historical background of this region is very frustrating. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. And what does "behaviour of its creator" suppose to mean? WP:NPA! This template serves the purpose to raise awareness of the history of the Sudetenland which "No one denies" and "no one tries to whitewash" - apart from trying to get the template deleted, that is. Its use reduces the need to repeat the same phrases in countless articles on places, persons, events. The content of the template, articles, flags etc. can be discussed, its in need of improvement anyway, as I've set it up quickly. Its helpfulness in general is self-evident, I'm tired of stating the same over and over again when a template can easily present an overview. -- Matthead DisOuß 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a region that no longer exists. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries of history still exist, buildings still exist, etc. -- Matthead DisOuß 10:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you may know, Sudetes never belonged to Germany, except the Nazi era. So why there is a German and Nazi flag? Are you going to spread it all over the Czech Republic ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-placing Nazi flag all over Czech towns, and placing template with German nationalist and Nazi claims over modern Czech Republic seems disruptive.--Molobo (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are POV issues with this template, and particularly with its current usage. It could possibly be used as a navigation template between articles about the history of this area, but adding it to every geographical location in the area is definitely a bad idea, and it looks like that's its main purpose. Terraxos (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues with this template, they should be discussed, with good arguments other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've already altered it significantly, and there's more constructive work needed, not destructive deletion. Regarding the use, there are countless templates describing something "former" or "historical", e.g. Template:Ukrainian historical regions, Template:Romanian historical regions, or Template:Former German colonies, which can be found on dozen of articles all over the world (e.g. Tanzania), and these were only colonies for decades, not integral part of German settlement and states for centuries, until a sudden end in 1945. I do not plan to stick it on every village, but it should be found on relevant pages, and it is vital for articles covering historical context. -- Matthead DisOuß 10:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how are Volksdeutsche and Ústí massacre connected to Klinovec? This is an extreme form of POV pushing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is not true that sudetenland was only german-speaking area. There were Czechs in huge numbers too. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete, ~~maybe categorize~~? Per above arguments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already created a category and he created a template for it. It is in the articles about cities, people, etc... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a category, there is no need for a template.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he created it also. The concerns remain also with the category. It is only a disruptive action, bad faith since its start. Maybe this can be applied Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Matthead only commented Nazi flag, he did not remove it. It is certain he will restore it back once. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:40, 1 January 2008 (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:User Australia1 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted already, under criterion G7. Spebi 10:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete user request per dif. JPG-GR (talk) 18:05, 27 December 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:User blank-10 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. — 172.134.115.82 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, as the template should be substituted in the creation of a new userbox. There shouldn't be a level 10 for languages, and this may still be used for other purposes, but there are more generic ways to create a userbox with these colours. –Pomte 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the blank series, those were designed not to be subst: and to mimic the language series. -Babel ious 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of current scheme of UBX for this type. Use as a "template" for userbox creation is unnecessary in this form. JPG-GR (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JPG-GR - outside the scope of the Babel system. Happy‑melon 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all its other userboxes in the same series such as blank-7 through blank-12 and blank-x have all been deleted. There is really no reason for this one, its color is random, its number is random, and I agree with the initial post it is unused. -Babel ious 04:06, 2 January 2008 (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:St. Thomas roads 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy - G7 --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessary, is a large template, and there is a precedent to delete these, as seen at WP:USRD/P. — Rschen7754 (T C) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not necessary. --Son (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent - category would suffice. Happy‑melon 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many times has the creator of the template !voted to delete? In addition to this template, I also created the category Highways in the Virgin Islands. Don't really know why. I'm also tagging Template:St. John USVI roads for speedy under CSD G7 for the same reasons. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 - user voted delete above - could he just tag it for speedy? — master son^{T - C} 02:15, 1 January 2008 (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.