Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27 edit

Template:User neo-Nazi 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory and divisive. Template:User Neo-Nazi was speedied last year.[1]. --Proabivouac 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As Proabivouac said, this template is inflammatory, and no one here needs to know that so and so is a neo-nazi. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 19:48, 27 January 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:Rolling Thunder series edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really short series comprised of only three games. No need for a navigational template in that case. --Jonny2x4 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much of a series - • The Giant Puffin • 10:28, 28 January 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:Picture has no copyright. Free from use, according to www.bronzes.cn edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual copyright template, and nothing that plain text can't cover. It's not what templatespace is for. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Royalguard11. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from its uselessness, I don't think it's accurate. I ran the bronzes.cn URL through Google's translation tool, and at the bottom of the page there's a "contact us" link. Click through that and there's a fairly prominent "Copyright © 2004 the Ministry of Information" message. So I'd recommend reviewing the images to which this template is transcluded as they may be copyvios? --DeLarge 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete template has been subst on the only page used. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dongwenliang has uploaded quite a few pictures and is falsely (or unbelievably anyway) claiming they are free from use and constantly deletes nolicense tags from them. I'm going to write him up and submit him for administrator action. Nardman1 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DeLarge. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{06:05, Sunday, January 28 2007}
Delete per nom - • The Giant Puffin • 10:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Terence Ong 11:44, 28 January 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:NOTOC edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundent to wiki magic word __NOTOC__. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant orphan. --DeLarge 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, repost of deleted content. -Amark moo! 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{06:04, Sunday, January 28 2007}
Delete Redundant - • The Giant Puffin • 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Tellyaddict 12:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Magic words are not at all obvious even to seasoned Wikipedia editors; you can cheerfully do tons of editing without never knowing their existence. We have {{TOCleft}} and {{TOCright}}, why not NOTOC? I know that I for one did not know of magic words for a considerable length of time and simply used the old NOTOC along with the other TOC templates, cheerfully never knowing the difference (and using NOTOC off a guess at a template name, too). Magic words are kludges that users are best shielded from; they add complexity and offer little. Hiding that seems a good idea.

Also, "I don't use it" is not an argument for deletion. Yes, this template is an orphan- because it was created a day before it was nominated! The older Notoc was most certainly not an orphan, so usage was there. Maybe some people prefer hardlinks over {{Google}}, but we allow both because it is useful to others. I've used the old Notoc before and am suprised to see that it's gone. This is a 0-harm template that greatly simplifies interaction with Wikipedia. As a note, I see that this issue came up before at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 19. There are some other keep votes saying similar things there, though the short "I don't use it" votes carried the day there as well. Also, I can say with some confidence that beginning and intermediate editors are both more likely to not know about magic words and less likely to visist TfD. SnowFire 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0.5em; float: left; padding: 0.5em 1.4em 0.8em 0; background-color: transparent; {{#if:{{{width|}}}|width: {{{width}}}|}}" | __TOC__ |}

is considerably more complicated than __NOTOC__. And as I've seen, people can edit without knowing how templates work, too, but that doesn't mean that templates should be hidden as much as possible. -Amark moo! 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "know how work" I mean from a user perspective, not a developer one. How templates work from a user perspective is obvious to the user: You add {{}} around a word and substitution happens. Simple, and similar in idiom to standard wikilinking. I expect that most people figure out what's happening without need to glance at a help/documentation page. Magic words are not at all obvious how they work or even that they should; if I add unadorned text to an article, I expect it to show up, not mystically disappear and cause unknown other changes. Why force users to learn three idioms for interaction with a page when they only need to know 2? SnowFire 22:46, 3 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:Japanese Car edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion, as unused. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template.[2] Second nomination, though first was rather perplexingly for "POV".[3] --DeLarge 15:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's orphaned yes, but that doesn't mean that its not useful. I think it's well put together and should stay. → JARED ^(t) 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a template being orphaned does mean it's useless. Chris cheese whine 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has its uses, with a minor fix it can become a very useful template - • The Giant Puffin • 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terence Ong 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good template but the article which don't exist should be created to tidy the template up a bit. Tellyaddict 12:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unused template... if there is no use then it is not useful. It's a bit ass-backwards to make a nav template and THEN find a place to use it. With the mess of nav templates we have these days I don't think we should be keeping them simply for the sake of keeping them. It's easy enough to reproduce if needed again, and likely would be better with fresh ideas and fresh considerations for what articles the template will include, etc. Reading the keep support comments makes me smack my forehead. XfDs are not some kind of trend, people. This is the kind of template I think would be speedy-able for housekeeping, since it's so painfully non-controversial. It's like saving every piece of paper you ever have because you might be able to write a phone message in the tiny corner on the back side where there is some white space. This isn't an evil template, but it's needless clutter. It's ok to delete needless clutter. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 1 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:Mitsubishi edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created and mostly maintained by myself, but now replaced by the more specific Template:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles, Template:Mitsubishi Motors companies and Template:Mitsubishi Motors technologies. Original name too vague given how many non-automobile Mitsubishi companies there are. Also now an orphan template. Currently a redirect, but in case future editors want to create a template for the Mitsubishi zaibatsu, I think it's best to delete. --DeLarge 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{06:02, Sunday, January 28 2007}
Delete Has since been replaced - • The Giant Puffin • 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, currently unused, nearly (but not quite) a candidate for speedy as author request. Xtifr _tälk 22:23, 28 January 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:User kkk 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotes racism and recognition of the Ku Klux Klan, similar to the pedophilia userbox in a way. --Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:GUS, even though i don't condone it's content. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{12:16, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Comment. Are we sure we want this at all? GUS only works if people will accept having the content somewhere. -Amark moo! 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Jorcoga. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Jorcoga. --DeLarge 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Delete if someone wants if. I refuse to adopt it on principle. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not userfy, for two reasons. First, he's not a klansman; he's an English high school kid. He's either trying to be funny, (which he's not), or he's a troll. Second, a pro-nazi userbox in userspace was deleted and the user indef-blocked by none other than Jimbo only a couple months back. And who remembers the pedophilia userbox? This is no different. Wikipedia is not censored, but it shouldn't serve as an incubator for trolls either. Picaroon 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Jorcoga. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn per Picaroon. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Picaroon. (remove personal attack) Jonny2x4 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Picaroon. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 19:47, 27 January 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:Video formats map edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct template, all uses have been replaced with a thumbnail of a .svg image --El Cid 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no point in keeping. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:14, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Delete -- not sure why this was ever a template, since a simple image insertion would have sufficed... --DeLarge 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - • The Giant Puffin • 10:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have much relevant information. Tellyaddict 12:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was used to "standardise" the image and key across all three pages. Now it's been replaced with a single image, it can be deleted. Dean Earley 15:08, 31 January 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:User plays Kings of Chaos edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a template, appears to be an attempt to create a list or category in template space. Completely unused. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not even a template. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:16, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Delete -- overenthusiastic page creation by a userbox nut? --DeLarge 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt even appear to be a template - • The Giant Puffin • 10:31, 28 January 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:Associations/Notable gardeners edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, huge navigation template that never should be used anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps we could turn this into a list? .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm a little puzzled as to why this and two other entirely unrelated templates are buried in a sub-page of Template:Associations. Notable gardeners, office types and astronomical orders of magnitude?!? --DeLarge 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this a template when it is so long. Perhaps, as suggested above, it could be turned into a list or even a category? - • The Giant Puffin • 10:32, 28 January 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:SeinfeldNavigation 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 merge/redirect to Template:Seinfeld. — CharlotteWebb 06:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, {{SeinfeldNavigation}}, is a duplicate of {{Seinfeld}}. I couldn't find a "merge template" template, so I listed both templates for deletion although I think only one should be deleted. Feel free to pick which one we should keep. -Hyad 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Template:Seinfeld. - grubber 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Seinfeld}} as a duplicate template. Smaller is better. Picaroon 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Seinfeld}} per Picaroon. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:18, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Delete --- {{Seinfeld}} existed for months before {{SeinfeldNavigation}}, and the latter is more or less a straight copy with redlinks to the DVDs added. Replace transclusions on individual pages and then delete this orphan. --DeLarge 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DeLarge. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - • The Giant Puffin • 10:33, 28 January 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:Seinfeld 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 and merge the other. — CharlotteWebb 06:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, {{Seinfeld}}, is a duplicate of {{SeinfeldNavigation}}. I couldn't find a "merge template" template, so I listed both templates for deletion although I think only one should be deleted. Feel free to pick which one we should keep. -Hyad 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in from {{SeinfeldNavigation}}. - grubber 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; redirect the above {{SeinfeldNavigation}} to this. Picaroon 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Picaroon. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:18, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Keep (see above) --DeLarge 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DeLarge. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this; merge t'other. chocolateboy 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to {{SeinfeldNavigation}} - • The Giant Puffin • 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said redirect that one to this. Yet you say merge this to that. Could you clarify? Picaroon 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the {{SeinfeldNavigation}} should be merged into {{Seinfeld}}. Davey4 11:55, 29 January 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:Croydon-tramlink 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! 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image tag is incompatible with our use of images on Wikipedia - we provide image credits only on image pages, not in articles. The images it's tagging should be orphaned (not least because none of the ones I checked actually included the link back to the photographer's website) and listed on WP:IFD. Also see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 18#Template:Buses-by-adam. —Cryptic 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fair use tag incompatable with our fair use criteria. Legally restricting what you're allowed to remove breaks the GFDL. -Amark moo! 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and delete all the images it's tagged with too. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:20, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Delete, although as far as I can see, the link is included at least occasionally (see the external links section of Tramlink route 1 and Tramlink route 2). Seems like it would have been more sensible to photoshop the website's URL onto the image itself... Anyhoo, such a tag is basically the same as creating a new image copyright tag, which should be the preserve of the WMF. --DeLarge 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just found the practically identical, except for site name, {{Trainweb}}. -Amark moo! 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "or in a photo credits area" language makes {{Trainweb}} much less objectionable - images pages are our photo credits areas. —Cryptic 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really needed, and a bit specific - • The Giant Puffin • 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I created this template. Is there any way of me rewording this template so that it doesn't get deleted? --sonicKAI 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. Do you have any evidence to back up your change of today, where you changed it to "in a photo credits area"? We can't just make stuff up and hope for the best. Chris cheese whine 16:04, 6 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.