Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23 edit

Template:Tpv 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 CSD G7. Note: Please do not re-create a page that was deleted before a XfD about it is closed, just to make the link blue; the red link will alert any interested admin that the discussion has to be closed. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant due to the uw-upv series and the name could easily be confused with uw-tpv, for talk page vandalism. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as redundant. Since I created Template:Tpv, and no one else has done any real edits to it, I'll speedily delete it. Also, a redirect won't work since it will confuse people who had used the templates previously. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{uw-upv1}}. --Ixfd64 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; although redirects should all happen at once, and not in pieces, there's no harm in having this one. Also, would someone speedy close this debate, since it has been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (and recreated it only for this TFD), and I've already commented. Gracenotes ^T § 03:24, 25 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:ACI and others 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 deleted by Ligulem as WP:SNOW of not a travel guide. —Dgies^t c 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all single use templates, and that single article is a user space article for someone who has been blocked indefinitely. (Article is User:Koavf/Worldguidebook). --Andrwsc 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted them. If anyone objects their deletion, drop me a note and I will restore them. --Ligulem 21:10, 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:2006-07 Magners League Table 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! 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Info can be adequately conveyed within the relevant article without the need for a template. --Bob 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an OK template but not relevant here and its in a Wikitable format, most templates are in a different format.Telly addict 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. -- P199 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tellyaddict. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepIts not a single use and it can be used in a new section of the Magnes League called tables showing how the teams have been placed in the last couple of years..--Cometstyles 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to have a huge list of tables in the main article, the winners and runnerup in a year by year table with links to the article on the competition that year. --Bob 15:29, 27 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:Debian 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! 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not likely to be used. -Percy Snoodle 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily Keep The template is good and is not curently used anywhere but leave it for a few weeks and if its not used then, delete it.Telly addict 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is its intended purpose? Hbdragon88 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia doesn't identify articles in this fashion. Templates should not replace categories. Gracenotes ^T § 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gracenotes. omg. its crazytales. 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague, bad precedent. Almost every article could use dozens of such templates. 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, looks like it was inspired by stub templates, but it's not a stub template, and I don't think we want to have templates like this that aren't stub templates. As a member of the Debian project myself, I'm a little saddened to see this go, but it clearly should. Xtifr _tälk 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like an overdressed See Also-link. bad precedent. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:01, 2 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:Totally Spies! 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! 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox for a television series with only four links; two of which are sub-stub articles on the creators. All relevant information can be found easily in main article. ― El Cid ∴∵ 05:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "See also" will work fine. Gracenotes ^T § 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above. John Reaves (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary navigation box. Harryboyles 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary navigation box, and "See also" will probably be fine. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:28, 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:ModernDharmicWriters 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! 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion have not been defined, leaving the possibility for this template to become huge (encompassing several countries and religions)- it is basically an unmanageable list, and as such an article which lists Modern Dharmic Authors would be better suited. Keeping this template only opens the way for edit wars. --Sfacets 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a list article would definitely be better. Certainly the template should not be put on articles of writers who are not included on it. There are a few dozen writers on it, but the template creator spammed many more articles with the template. This implies that some writers are more important than others. What are the criteria for inclusion? IPSOS (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first claim, that the criteria for inclusion have not been defined, applies to most other templates as well, and is wrong because there is a discussion about the criteria for inclusion on its talk page. Where are the criteria for inclusion for the Hinduism or the Buddhism template? Are they also to be deleted?

The claim by IPSOS that the template should not be put on articles of authors who are not included on it was answered by me already on talk, and I have received no response to my second post. Almost all religion and other templates (like the Hinduism and Buddhism templates) are also on many other articles which are not on the template but are related. Are they to be deleted for this? I believe that most articles benefit if they have 1 or 2 templates, and many of these articles had no other templates at all, I didn't put it on articles which already had many templates.

The claim that the template could become too big is not an issue at the moment, and there are many bigger templates. If it once becomes too big, the number of authors per religion should be restricted. Personally, I would like to see separate templates for each part in the future, that either complement or replace this template. But the problem is that right now, these kind of author articles are too incomplete and underdeveloped. For instance, there are at the moment not enough articles on Jain and Sikh authors to have a separate template on Jain and Sikh authors. There is one single article on an important Jain writer that is halfway well developed (it's still a stub). I imagine that in maybe one or two years, there will many more articles on other important Jain writers, but until then, it makes no sense to have a template on Jain writers. --Bondego 08:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that the "Dharmic writers" category plus an article listing same could be enough; the pool of qualifying writers may just be too diverse to represent a defined body of thought that it would be worth mapping in this way. Jayen466 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility, why not split the template into its separate categories (Jain, Hindu, etc.) now. And rather than listing all the Dharmic authors in all of these categories each time the template appears in an article, we could just (1) list all the Dharmic category labels along a row at the top, with the applicable category highlighted, and (2) list, in the main area, the writers in the category that the present article falls into. Users should then be able to click on the other categories in the top row (hyperlinks) to get to the lists of writers in those categories. So the effect would be something like this:

                                 Modern Dharmic Writers (1875 to present)
  Buddhist writers | Hindu writers | Jain writers | Sikh writers | Zen writers | Other/syncretic
                 Satish Kumar | Claudia Pastorino | Yashodev Suri | Jayantsain Suri

Colour coding of the category labels at the top and the main listing field could be used to aid orientation (like green for Hindu, white for Jain etc.). Jayen466 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good idea. I think I saw similar examples in article- and userspace, but must search them. Do you know such examples? --Bondego 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to look again -- I've seen something like this, but can't remember where it was ... Another thing, the template should probably accommodate J. Krishnamurti as well (Other/syncretic?). Where should theosophists go? Jayen466 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Feelings - I do think that having a template that assists folks in finding authors in this area is a good idea, however, as it stands, I'm a bit confused over the criteria that should be applied to what author's qualify. In reading the above responses, I would tend to lean toward a category being started and article written that defines what "Modern Dharmic Writers" means and contains a listing. Nightngle 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The high number of authors that could qualify for the template is a problem in the long term. However, at the moment, these articles are still very incomplete and underdeveloped. In the short term, the template may also help a bit to bring some focus to these articles, which currently have often NPOV and serious WP:BLP problems. In the long term, when we have more of these articles which are also well developed, the "category only" solution could be better.--Bondego 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It generally is correct on the major writers and documentors of the movement.Baka man 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep in the absence of evidence that it is actually being wrongly used, or widely used but disputed.DGG 01:43, 27 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:Canadiansoldiers.com Image 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! 07:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete fair use tag, as the template isn't used with any images. There's enough clutter when it comes to various fair use tags already. There also exists a redirect at Template:Canadiansoldiers,com Image. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tag is a bit confusing as it cites fair use and permission granted in the same breath. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJohn Reaves (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defeats the purpose of tags when it only represents images from a site, of which there are none. Harryboyles 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryboyles (talk • contribs) 09:22, 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.