Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21 edit

Template:Infobox Pokémon City 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! 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template in lieu of the clunky wikitables I saw on various Pokémon city articles. Now that they all have been merged, no pages use this template, therefore it is no longer useful and should be deleted. As I am not the sole author, {{db-author}} does not apply. Hbdragon88 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable in the subject matter - but my only involvement was to encourage discussion on the talk page. (And to create a talk page as well, hehe.) Smee 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural delete. I trust that the WikiProject has taken care of this, so unless Hbdragon88 is prevaricating (why do I doubt that? :P), the sooner gone the better. Gracenotes ^T § 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they have indeed been consensually merged, so this is useless. -Amarkov moo! 05:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deprecated template.--Danaman5 04:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's reasoning for deletion is sound. — Athænara ✉ 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but this is mostly to note: next time, you can just say that the wikiproject has deprecated the template and the template is no longer used, which gets the point across more clearly.) —AySz88 \^-^ 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Deprecated" is not universal wiki-speak. I'll speak as I speak, thanks. — Æ. ✉ 07:12, 24 February 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 page.

Template:1900sheader 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 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. John Reaves (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed... not much more to say. Gracenotes ^T § 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, deprecated, no other template following the same naming convention exists, etc., etc... — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above; did look at it personally, and concur. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:57, 23 February 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 page.

Template:Current2 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. No, we don't delete proposals that are rejected, but these aren't proposals. These are forked out templates that are now being added without having been discussed anywhere. That's a bad idea. By long-standing precedent, if you don't like a template, edit it rather than fork it - and if you have a large-impact proposal, make it rather than preemptively implementing it. Note that related proposals have been rejected in the past, e.g. Wikipedia:Editor tags. >Radiant< 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{POV2}}, {{Contradict2}}, {{Disputed2}}, {{Cleanup-rewrite2}}, {{Expert2}}, {{Unreferenced2}} and {{Original research2}}. These templates as just such a bad idea. So bad, they're probably speedy deletion candidates on more than one criteria. Nevertheless: I advise deletion because (a) these templates do not work with skins other than Monobook; (b) these templates reduce accessibility in Wikipedia; (c) the purpose of our existing loud templates is to encourage people to correct the problem - tucking it away as a meaningless icon in the corner of the page won't do this. 〈RED VEЯS〉 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I created them based on a discussion that sought to improve Wikipedia pages by the removal of the large tags that are everywhere.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't reject proposals by XfDing them. I agree fully that this is a bad idea, but the way to decide that is not XfD. Come back after it's been decided. -Amarkov moo! 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close this doesn't belong here yet. However the pages of the template should link to the discussion and contain a bit "DONT USE THIS" warning. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now due to process per Amarkov; otherwise completely agree with Redvers. HisSpaceResearch, not everyone agrees, by a long way, that WP is "too cluttered" with templates (the countervailing opinion to that notion is that these templates are big and loud for a very good reason, namely they get things fixed because they are annoying.) PS: Your sig is broken and redlinks to a non-article, just FYI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow ongoing discussion at the pump reach consensus, but I agree with nom's rationale regardless. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - they don't even work with all the monobooks. Why not just use the regular template? What's more, the reason that {{sprotect2}} is being used instead of {{sprotect}} is to avoid WP:BEANS problems, which none of these have. However, I'm not sure how they could possibly qualify for speedy deletion. Also, I'm not aware of the current "proposal", and the closing admin may wish to take that into account 64.178.98.57 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until the discussion is complete. There's no reason to have these in template space while the discussion is on-going, and once its over, they can be deleted or moved as appropriate. Yes, it's not quite as easy to type "{{User:HisSpaceResearch/Current2}}", as it is to type "{{Current2}}, but that's a pretty minor issue. Xtifr _tälk 21:21, 24 February 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 page.

Template:Ellen_G._White 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! 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure religious cruft. This person is not notable of herself to merit a template. She is notable only in the context of the church. --Nardman1 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most pages linked to in this template are not sub-topics of Ellen G. White, and thus its scope is not clearly defined, making its purpose unclear as a template (how vaguely related is vaguely related enough for inclusion?). For example, this template is transcluded on Seventh-day Adventist theology and James Springer White. Delete because of limited amount of articles that related to White. Navigational templates for mere people (as opposed to more-than-people people) should not exist (Category:Author navigational boxes is not about a person, by the way), because one person can't be that notable, right? Gracenotes^T § 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 out of 9 current links are clearly sub-topics of Ellen White (family being so close that sub-topics fits IMO). I disagree with your concept of notability, but this wouldn't be the first time I have come up on the keep side of a notability related discussion on wikipedia. I do not quite agree with its transclusion on the Seventh-day Adventist theology page, however, the link on this template seems okay as she was a founding member who setup the major pieces of theology that the church uses currently. Ansell 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
~~I am not sure of the reference but I have read that she is the second most translated female author ever behind Agatha Christie [1]~~. Having looked into it further some actual figures can be found here (A Gift of Light, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1983, pp. 30, 31) That and the influence within Seventh-day Adventism should be enough for a template. Using derogatory language to say this is "religious cruft" doesn't exactly show a respect for knowledge in general. Your personal view about religion should be independent of the facts here. I have not encountered a standard for how many articles must be related to a topic before it becomes worthy of a template but having 7 directly related articles, plus the two church pages, and two clear red links to both her son and her other majorly translated publication, ie, Steps to Christ, is on par with what I have generally seen around Wikipedia. Ansell 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete; not notable enough or spawning enough real topics to support this navigation template. There's just really nothing to navigate to or from, to speak of. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the limited number of topics does not need this template for clear linking or orientation among them.DGG 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominators must deal with much "religious cruft", but the articles relating to Ellen White are genuine attempts at notability and NPOV. These include primarily: Ellen G. White, (the debate concerning the) Prophetic gift of Ellen White, Teachings of Ellen White, List of Ellen White writings. Also Ellen G. White Estate, the organization set up by her to preserve and promote her writings. Then there are her family members like husband James Springer White and son William C. White. White is a significant figure, being the subject of numerous books (for and against), Ph.D. studies and so on, as well as intense debate within religious studies. Colin MacLaurin 01:43, 6 March 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 page.

Template:Infobox Rebbe 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 keep, nominator withdrew. Feel free to continue discussion on the talk page. Gracenotes ^T § 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary and I don't see a need/use for this. --Yossiea ^(talk) 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It appears that this is a template for leaders of Hasidic Judaism, but I'm not entirely sure. If it is, it should be kept, because it has parameters other infoboxes do not. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This template is used in a growing number of biographies of rebbes (Hasidic leaders). There is no other template which will serve this purpose. In particular it uses parameters peculiar to this group of bios. It is in the interests of Wikipedia to maintain a uniform style across these bios.--Redaktor 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For Amarkov and Redaktor's reasons. Itzse 23:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but fine tune. "Issue 1"? yeshivish
Strong keep. Useful for keeping track of the various Rebbes, especially for us mitnagdim. Kolindigo 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it would be useful for all those in Category:Hasidic rebbes. IZAK 07:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very useful template. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. For Redaktor's and IZAK's reasons Neigerig 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful to keep track (heh Kolindigo), provided maximum link functionality is provided. JFW | T@lk 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will change my nomination to a Weak Keep based upon the responses here. I would like the template cleaned up a bit, the part that gets me is wife1 issue1, etc. There ought to be a better way to display that information. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template is on most rebbe articles. Jer10 95 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI, it's not on most, it's not even on many. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:06, 23 February 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 page.

Template:Db-autobio 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. TWINKLE has been updated. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have this template; its functionality is completely covered by {{db-bio}}, and it assumes bad faith when not necessary. Part Deux 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. Yeah, I agree. If you're almost sure something is an autobiography you can always tag it with {{coi}}. Danski14 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an autobiography is not necessarily a reason for deletion. If it doesn't qualify for speedy without a COI, it doesn't qualify with one either. -Amarkov moo! 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: am I the only one who finds it funny that Wikipedians assume that autobiographies are always written in the 3rd person? Something that I now do all the time :) Unlike fair use, deletion criteria should only be about an article's content in itself (understanding that there may be other versions in the history, of course). Indicating that something is an autobiography might give people the wrong idea about notability. This template is not needed. Gracenotes ^T § 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is redundant to {{db-bio}} and misleading. John Reaves (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete being "autobiographical" alone simply not a reason for deletion, speedy or otherwise. Things like this template contribute to that misconception. --W.marsh 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I sympathize with new page partollers coming across NN autobiographical articles, the standard {{db-bio}} works just fine. —Dgies^t c 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur strongly with Dgies, et al. The template's a bit "grumpy". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiographies, and conflicst of interest are not reasons for deletion. Only non-notable articles should get deleted --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I cleaned the various incoming links to this, but it is still used in the WP:TWINKLE script. I made a note to the script's author about this TfD and also posted a request at RPP. Please make sure User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js has been fixed before deleting. Thanks. —Dgies^t c 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWINKLE has been updated. Should be ready to go (check links again) —Dgies^t c 13:30, 1 March 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 page.

Template:Infobox UK place 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use. We have the long-standing and very widely used: Template:Infobox England place, Template:Infobox London place, Template:Infobox Scotland place and Template:Infobox Wales place. Settlements in Northern Ireland use Template:Infobox Place Ireland, which is shared with places in the Republic. --Mais oui! 06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Neutral~~ Keep and standardize: ~~Rationale makes~~ ~~complete~~ some sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: Sounds like a new improvement effort has been mistaken for an orphan template. MRSC, it would help if you cited examples of "invitation[s] put on the talk pages" of the other templates, so they can be examined to see if how they affect the situation, how old they are, etc., and other supporting widgets. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: Keep and standardize, per MJCdetroit below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The template was developed to replace all those templates. It has been tested and works in all cases. It is also a direct copy of template:Infobox City so its more consistent with other place infoboxes on WP. It is also far more flexible than the other templates. The reason it is not currently in use is because it is less than 24 hours old and because there was an invitation ([2], [3], [4], [5]) put on the talk pages of the above templates to discuss changes before it is used in the article space. MRSC • Talk 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a new template and one that could standardise matters further. Also as per MRSC Regan123 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Standardize. Although, if this is copy of {{Infobox City}} as MRSC states, why not just use Infobox City and avoid creating another template? But for now, replace other templates with this one (UK place) and then delete the other templates. —MJCdetroit 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a confusing proposition as the vast majority of UK places are not cities. MRSC • Talk 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a very good and needed development. It is very new, and so cannot yet be expected to have widespread use. It also cannot be simply discarded in favour of the Infobox City, as most places in the UK are not cities (as User:MRSC states). DDStretch (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to MRSC:Although, Infobox City has the name City in it, it is very flexible and can be used for almost any type of settlement. Here are a few examples of {{Infobox City}} being used in "non-city" type situations: Municipality, town, dissolved city, and I've seen villages too. However, eliminating 3 separate templates with one (UK place) is a step in the right direction. We can always see about merging UK place with Infobox City at a later date. —MJCdetroit 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about Comment If dealing with Infobox City is on the cards, then, given what you say about it, one key move might be to change its name from "Infobox City" to "Infobox Place" to avoid the kinds of mismatches you mention and thus avoid confusion, but this is not relevant to this particular discussion here. DDStretch (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending discussion on adopting it to replace the templates listed by nom. — mholland 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is an insane nomination given that the template was created yesterday with the intention of replacing those templates stated by the nom. DJR (T) 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super keep/speedy keep: This is a good template. It shows where is the place and london is part of it.Jer10 95 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be feasible to merge it with the old templates? i.e: Would it be possible for this template to temporarily support some of the old parameters (however, deprecate the old parameters and remove them from this template as and when they are no longer used) and redirect the old templates to this one? IMHO this has two effects - 1) it keeps a consistent look and feel throughout articles - more professional? 2)It hopefully helps avoid a raft of further templates being created or some articles "going it alone" because of the lack of consistency between articles Pit-yacker 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Template talk:Infobox UK place#Older templates. MRSC • Talk 07:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I would prefer this to the existing one in Cornish articles. --A Cornish Pasty 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, still needs some minor work and consenus agreed, but generally far superior to the previous versions. Jhamez84 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep why is 'work in progress' being proposed for deletion anyway? Kbthompson 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as above. It seems very good. MRM 16:05, 23 February 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 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 Keep, but the template should be applied only when it might be needed for immediate clarification. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chinese name edit

Delete. This template is not particularly useful and it clutters the space at the top of the page.--Niohe 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This template, like all others in that class exists for a reason (actually several, when it comes to the entire category, but in this case one). It is not at all immediately clear to many, perhaps the majority of, Western readers that the family name in "Ding Junhui" is "Ding". It can be overused - if the article text itself explicates the name syntax, the template (which is largely intended for B-class articles and lower) should be removed from the article. That does not make the template useless, it just means it needs better documentation. Given that these templates in most cases had no documentation at all about 2 weeks ago, nor a category, nor any consistency, I think a TfD is kind of jumping the gun a bit. By the reasoning that it "clutters the space at the top of the page" we might as well also remove disambiguation templates and all of the (article-wide, non-section) cleanup tags, too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Updated. 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually many of the templates you refer to were created by yourself quite recently, and I wasn't even aware of these templates until now. It is only tautological to quote these templates as proof of the necessity of this template. I have been annoyed by the Chinese surname template for quite a while and I think it is time to get rid of it, and if this means that the other go as well, I am fine with that.

There are many other ways of clarfying the usages of Chinese surnames and it is often clear from the context what is what. In the article you quote, Ding Junhui is referred to by his surname Ding and I do not think it would occur to anyone that Ding is the given name. The assumption that "Western" readers "don't understand" Chinese surname is a bit patronizing, just image a disclaimer on a template page saying something like "It may not be obvious to the average Chinese reader that..."

As the template look now, it leads to quite unencyclopedic articles on Chinese surnames and they often duplicates disambiguation links. I see no use for this template what so ever.--Niohe 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That may be true, but it's very helpful with Chinese bio stubs where it's not immediately clear which is the given name and which is the family name. See half the pages in Category:Chinese figure skaters. Kolindigo 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Furthermore a) the implication that my opinion doesn't count because I've been doing work in that part of the templatespace is silly. b) Your "referred to by surname" argument doesn't actually hold water; see {{Vietnamese name}} template. Only someone who already knew that both languages use family-name-first ordering, and already knew about the radical difference between Chinese and Vietnamese addressing traditions, would understand why one article used the surname and the other did not or (more to the point) even understand which parts the surnames were (unless as I already noted the article were developed enough that it already made such matters clear). c) Whether you were aware of the templates until now isn't of any consequence to this TfD. d) I don't follow your "patronizing" point; this is just another form of disambig. in the encyclopledia, like any other. Your archly constructed "counterexample" is not actually comparable to the real templates in question, and essentially forms a strawman argument. e) I have no idea what you mean by this template causing the creation of nonencyclopedic articles. Examples please? Actually I don't know what you mean by this template duplicating disambiguation links, either. f) There is nothing tautological about pointing out the existence of related templates, many of which predate my involvement, for the purpose of noting that because they are only newly consistentized (to make up a word) and only newly and in some cases just partially documented, that the problem is with their documentation, not their existence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep!: if deleted, then we wont know which is a chinese name.Jer10 95 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, inherantly useful template. Kolindigo 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This template helps to explain surname-given name order of articles named for Chinese people, where the surname comes first in their names. For example, it explains that in Mao Zedong, "Mao" is the surname. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How you keep something speedily? Anyway, I'd like all three of you to respond to my comments above.--Niohe 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (answer): It basically means close and reject the nomination immediately on procedural grouds as a trivial and meritless deletion nomination. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A page can only be speedy-kept if the nominator has withdrawn and nobody else wants it deleted, the nomination was in bad faith, the nominator is banned, or the nominated page is a policy or guideline. None of these seem to have happened here, so people should be !voting 'keep' (or possibly 'snowball keep' if they want that controversial procedure to be invoked) rather than 'speedy keep'. --ais523 09:43, 22 February 2007 (U T C)

Comment: I guess I see making utterly frivolous "cuz I don't like it" deletion nominations to be essentially a bad faith action. I could possibly be dissuaded from that view, but given the increased load in XfD due to such nonsense, I'd rather promote it... Being mistaken about the valid reasons for deleting and article, etc., is one thing, but providing no basis at all is simply a waste of everyone's time. But perhaps I'm just cranky about this peeve. I guess this isn't the place to really get into that, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This template distinguishes the surname of the person immediately, because the format of Chinese names in English usage is not always the same. Examples that are potentially confusing: Chen Cheng (which both of the words can be surnames), and Faye Wong (may confuse some readers that does not know her). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting comment: And, further: Western sources, especially with regard to Asian sportspeople, are wildly inconsistent. To make up an example, a world-champion pole vaulter named Xing Wu-fei may appear as Xing Wufei, Xing Wu Fei, Xing Fei, Xing Wu, Fei Xing, Wu-fei Xing, Wu Fei Xing, Wu Xing, and Wufei Xing (not to mention radically different transliterations, like "Woo", "Fe", "Ching", etc., etc., etc.), all in extant publications, sports shows, records listings, etc.. Even someone slightly familiar with the subject of the article coming to look for more information is highly unlikely to be completely certain of the correct name order, even if they already know something about Chinese names (assuming they even know the person is Chinese, and not Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) The {{Korean name}} case is even more compelling, because Korean names are more commonly transliterated in forms like Kim Jong Il not Kim Jong-il, making disambiguation of name order even harder. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SMcCandlish, please spare me the ad hominems and assume some good faith, would you?

We already have disambiguation links that can lead people to the appropriate article. Now we have so many templates that sometimes pages look like this. I fail to see what this template was doing on this page, but people keep reinserting it. I have never heard anyone referring to Mao Zedong as "Zedong" or Chiang Kai-shek as "Kai-shek". If an editor find that a person is erroneously referred to by his or her given name, this can be dealt with in the first paragraph of the article. We can capitalize the surname, to make clear what is what. Are we supposed to have templates for every possible misunderstanding?--Niohe 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no ad hominem argument against you whatsoever (in fact I haven't said anything about you personally, positive or negative). Assume good faith does not mean believe religiously. I don't think you are a bad person or that you intent is malicious. As explained above I simply believe that the concept of good faith can no longer blanket-include plainly meritless actions that waste other editors' time, like filing "I don't know of this or don't find it personally interesting/useful" XfDs that do not cite policies/guidelines/de facto consensus standards in the way of a defensible rationale. Nothing personal at all. I don't like your deletion nomination, on procedural grounds, as odious and pointless. Others may disagree with this. If so, my talk page is open, and so is my mind, so feel free to convince me otherwise. Maybe I'm just grumpy about such things and need some tea. Or maybe I'm pointing out the fact that WP is huge now and straining under the weight of stuff it shouldn't have to deal with. PS: I'm not singling out Niohe in particular: Abusing wrong process to try to get rid of a stub and doing it again; and a blatantly meritless AfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you accuse me of bad faith, and I'm not supposed to take it personally? Sorry, you may not have phrased you remarks as such, but your contributions very much read like personal attacks. Offense taken. Well, I guess you lost my vote when you run for admin next time. Ciao.--Niohe 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unlikely to happen, as to that last; busy enough without the mop.) I apologize; in retrospect after a good dinner and some time to mull it over, in which I've tried hard to wear your shoes, I can see where you are coming from, despite my disclaimer that it's nothing personal and just procedural, and it reminded me of something similar that happened to me on Wiktionary, so I can empathize as well as sympathize. I've been trying to stretch the definition of "bad faith" to encompass things that are not actively malevolent, and, well, it's just not working. The three or four times I've tried this, the resistance has been pretty stiff, so I'm giving up on it. Sorry you got caught in the experimental net; it wasn't fair to you. I think a better strategy on my part will be to try to get the speedy definitions stretched instead (something has to shift.) I don't expect this to make you feel particularly better, but it is a real apology, for what little that might be worth. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you personally have never heard of is of little consequence. Instead of adding text in Chinese biographical articles to explain surname/given name ordering, we can just use this template. It makes both editing and reading much easier. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have voted "delete" but given this is not where the consensus is headed, I would like to echo SMcCandlish's sentiment that this template can be easily overused. The template serves to clarify for readers cases where it is not immediately obvious whether the surname constitutes the first, second, or third name given. It should not serve as a link to surname articles or be in any way redundant with the article text. It should not be given for persons using western names e.g. "Iris Chang" where there is no chance of confusion or in articles already stating the surname of the person e.g. "Sun Yat-sen", explicitly in a table or less explicitly such as through a discussion of the person's relatives. I think this should be deleted because it is too obtrusive; the link can be made in a less jarring manner, as is done for Japanese people e.g. Junichiro Koizumi. The space belongs to disambiguations, not what should be presented in the article itself.--Jiang 03:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This proposal for deletion is entirely unhelpful and uninformed. The template assists readers in instantly determining, in WP articles about Chinese individuals, which is the given and family names. This is not immediately apparent to many Wikipedians unfamiliar with the Chinese language or Chinese naming conventions. Badagnani 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mostly for reasons above, i.e. that it informs users which name is the surname on articles where it is unclear. Of course, this should not be used in every article, and I support limits for its use. Finally, I do not believe that this was a bad-faith nom of any kind.--Danaman5 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I often run into Chinese biographical articles that are filed in categories incorrectly and get sorted by the wrong part of the name. This notice advises people not to do that. --Ideogram 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To SMcCandlish - I found your lengthy and aggressive responses quite uncalled for, given the fact that it was quite apparent early on that I had lost the nomination. But fair enough, apology accepted. Let bygones be bygones.

Comment: Sorry I came off as aggressive, and I recognize that I did. I was trying to make a point (not a WP:POINT mind you) and ended up cutting you in the process. Mea culpa. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the speedy keepers - Having reading what speedy keep actually means, I find the implication of this term offensive in this discussion. What you are implying is basically that my nomination is a form of vandalism or that I am a banned user. You might as well report me to an admin, instead of wasting your time writing contributions in a debate you have already won.--Niohe 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer a third opinion here, "speedy keep" is often used as a synonym as "strong keep", with a bias towards closing early. Niohe, it may do good to assume good faith; these people are not sending a clandestine insult towards you (a secret code that can only be decrypted through a meticulous reading of guidelines). "Speedy keep" is more of an "if it can be speedy kept, then do so," whether through nominator withdraw, WP:SNOW, or something like that. If they thought that you were a troll, they would say so and motion to speedy keep because of that. But you're not. Gracenotes ^T § 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As to others: exactly; I don't think anyone else here is being crappy. I think in my case I introduced or reinforced the idea that this should be speedied because the delete nomination wasn't explained in policy-cognizable terms, ergo was trivial, ergo was bad faith, which isn't a chain of reasoning with any support outside the way I felt about it at the time, so I retract it. It wasn't intended as a below-the-belt shot, but had that effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through some of the comments, actually, others could have also assumed good faith as well. But we're all human, I suppose. Gracenotes ^T § 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Jiang's comment. Limit the use of this template to potentially confusing cases only. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. But in response to someone else's comment above, I can't think of any reason not to wikilink to a specific surname article in this template if there is one (see Li He-wen for an example); Wikipedia wikilinks to relevant articles for a reason, after all. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:37, 23 February 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:Infobox City Canada 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 main template and subpages. Canadian Town templates are not deleted per massive ongoing transclusion. IronGargoyle 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template was not updated very often and had fields that would not hide their displays. For example, motto would be displayed on many pages when there wasn't any motto and area code would show up as {{{Area Code}}} on some pages. The template seemed to complex to use for some editors as well. All pages using this template, which wasn't many, have been standardized to {{Infobox City}} which has been customized to accommodate cities from Canada and is updated much more often. --MJCdetroit 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rationale makes complete sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ delete. All canadian cities use {{Infobox City}}Jer10 95 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pftt, couldn't they have all been changed before I needed to remove the CSS hack from that thing 3 days ago ? :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. There is also {{Infobox Town Canada}}, the old redirects {{Canadian City}}, {{Canadian Town}} and all their subpages in [6]. Those can be speedied if both templates are deleted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DJ. The Infobox Town Canada Template is equally as 'crappy' but has about 290 pages that use it and it would be best to be transfered over to Infobox City before TfD. There's also {{British Columbia municipality infobox}} which is a little better quality but could be replaced all the same too. —MJCdetroit 02:17, 23 February 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 page.

Template:For1 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 —dgies^t_c 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is only being used in three articles and seems like somewhat of a redundant template to be used. For the three articles which use it currently, the {{for}} template can be easily substituted. –Crashintome4196 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It is slightly more convenient in the cases where it's used, but not that much so, meaning that consistency in templating is probably best. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and this is worded redundantly, so that's bad too. -Amarkov moo! 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but fix usage per Crashintome4196 below ~~Neutral/Merge/Document~~: It strikes me as extremely likely that what you're labelling a redundancy was intentional, for some particular case. I would a) look at the articles it is used in (and if they can be handled by another template in this class, change them over), and/or b) contact the creator(s) of the template, ask them what it is for, and ask them to either merge it with another or document it properly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what it's for; it disambiguates pages where the link is the same as the name of the thing. That can be done just as well by using both parameters in {{For}}, and they are worded exactly the same. -Amarkov moo! 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what it is for as well. I just do not see the need for a template to display a dablink saying something such as For Fake River, see Fake River. A {{for}} template should be used instead to provide a more accurate, better sounding description, such as For the river in [country], see Fake River. –Crashintome4196 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crashintome4196's final comment above. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:08, 23 February 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 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 speedily deleted, G4. Proto ► 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Custom page title edit

Not in use. Seems like a hack to change the title of a wikipage. If it works it at least doesn't work on Safari, but if it does on other pages, it's still a bad idea to have such a hack available in wikipedia trough a simple template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent exists: this TFD debate. The consensus was userfy. Then userfied versions were put up for MFD. The consensus was keep. Currently exists at User:1ne/Title. Please speedy delete this version if possible, per unintentional WP:CSD#G4 of TFD debate, unless consensus about page title hacks in the template namespace has changed. Gracenotes ^T § 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Although we still have our {{click}} CSS hack, displayed on every one of our 2000 odd featured content pages... -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 21 February 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 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 Keep pending discussion with project participants. Phil | Talk 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illustrated Wikipedia edit

Unused except in creator's userspace and the moribund WPP that spawned it (WPP serves a valid purpose, but template does not); sole purpose of template was for noting the addition of original cartoons to WP articles which were deemed nonencyclopedic and deleted from articlespace. Serves no purpose, and was consistently abused by putting it on article pages instead of talk page (WPP tags go on talk pages not article pages). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: Speedy delete; template has been rendered completely moot by {{WikiWorld}}. 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless someone shows me where it was decided that all such pictures were unencyclopedic; I can find no such discussion. And as for misuse (which isn't relevant anyway), {{Spoken Wikipedia}} goes on the main articles... -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete. Apparently, while I wasn't watching, the Wikiproject turned into "let's make comic strips!" Those I am convinced are unencyclopedic. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right; that was the point. I wasn't even aware that the WPP had ever had any other purpose than these cartoons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like the comics, but I don't think it's necessary to mention it on article space. Like it is now used on the Tony Clifton article. Garion96 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment update: {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} has now been totally replaced by {{WikiWorld}}, and the WikiProject itself moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld. I think {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} could even be speedied at this point, as it literally has no reason to exist at all. Fixed Tony Clifton, btw (again; someone may revert the change again, but I'm going to fix obsolete template so that doing has no visible effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Reaves (talk) 00:45, 22 February 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 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 Keep pending discussion with project participants. Phil | Talk 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia edit

Unused except in creator's userspace and the moribund WPP that spawned it (WPP serves a valid purpose, but template does not); sole purpose of template was for noting the addition of original cartoons to WP articles which were deemed nonencyclopedic and deleted from articlespace. Serves no purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: Speedy delete; template has been rendered completely moot by {{WikiWorld}}. 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not understand your nomination reason, but no articles should be considered as part of this Wikiproject, as it just creates illustrations. -Amarkov moo! 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related delete nomination imm. above, where same user changed vote for reasons that address the first clause of their post here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the extent that this template poorly attempted to serve the purpose of saying "this Wikipedia article has had a 'WikiWorld' cartoon made about it", I'll probably address that tomorrow by making a proper template for that purpose. This concern (to the extent it might arise at all; I think there are only 20 or so such cartoons in the first place) has nothing to do with whether to keep a pointless and mal-used WPP template (in this case, it indicated very incorrectly that the articles to which it may be, and was recently, attached fall under the planning, review and assessment purview of the WikiProject in question, which is emphatically not the case.) I'll update further with another comment here if/when the cartoon-related talk-page header is installed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment update: {{WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia}} has now been totally replaced by {{WikiWorld}}, and the WikiProject itself moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld. I think {{WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia}} could even be speedied at this point, as it literally has no reason to exist at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:23, 21 February 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 page.

Template:Moby group 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. IronGargoyle 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moby group Template is not used and links can be made with Template:Moby game template instead --WOSlinker 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Llama man 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{moby group}} and {{moby game}} do not and cannot serve the same function, but the template in question is not used, and doesn't need to be. Gracenotes ^T § 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's some good reason why we need to template a link like this, I can modify the other template so it'll work just as well. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 21 February 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 page.

Template:Barnstars 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! 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a vestige of when their were fewer awards. It is now so long that it has outlived its usefuleness. --evrik ^(talk) 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How has it outlived its usefulness? Those are still the basic awards there. -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete, per Gracenotes. I wasn't aware that there actually was another list. -Amarkov moo! 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the barnstars! (Strong and Speedy Keep) -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are now four pages of awards. this was created when there was just one page. The template is incomplete. It is really not useful anymore. --evrik ^(talk) 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Barnstars supersedes, and is much more helpful than, this list of links to images. NO BARNSTARS ARE BEING DELETED. Merely this unhelpful list. Gracenotes ^T § 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete: Gracenotes is exactly right on this one, but... The only reason to conceivably save this is if it were "adopted", updated, and maintained by adopter regularly so that it remained current. There is no overaching reason to delete a template that is contentually duplicative of a Wikipedia-namespace page, if it presents the content in a different way. My bookmarks page here makes use of two such templates right up at the top of it, and I find them very useful. If not "adopted" before AfD nears closing, then delete, per Gracenotes and nominator. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an appropriate use of a template. Redundant to more appropriate Wikipedia:Barnstars. Eluchil404 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not even a list of the awards as they are to be used themselves, but rather a list of the images - completely useless for replicating standardized awards. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:09, 23 February 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 page.