Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21 edit

Template:Fantasmic! 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 subst on main article and delete. IronGargoyle 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for films & characters appearing in a Disneyparks fireworks show. The template appears right now only on characters appearing in the show, it was removed from the film articles. I don't think this firework show is important enough to warrant this template on every fictional character's article. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Certainly seems like this would give undue weight to the show when featured on any page not expressly about the show, but it does seem relevant at Fantasmic!. Torn, leaning towards remove it from everything but the aforelinked article. MrZaius^talk 19:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it can/should stay in the Fantasmic! article, but for just one article you don't use a template. Garion96 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete would work but that article has such incredibly lengthy "synopses" of the disneyland and disneyworld shows that, if for some reason they can't be dramatically cut, perhaps they should be split into separate articles that would use this template. MrZaius^talk 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, substitute only on Fantasmic! -- Amazins490 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute on the main article only. It's a convenient way to be able to navigate in that page, but it's too trivial of a link for the infobox to appear on every page. --fuzzy510 23:17, 22 July 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:Cod 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 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently not used, and in 2006 July 26 it is stated that this template was to be deleted after substitution. — ✉ Hello World! 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused -- Amazins490 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 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:Tpv4MrB 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 objections; defaulting to delete. Mike Peel 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful template, several others are much more useful (i.e Template:uw-vandalism4, Template:Test4, Template:Bv — the list goes on....). Rlest 15:27, 21 July 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 Telnven 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 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy if possible). Unused; purpose unclear; name is user-name. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:29, 22 July 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 Poland (no flag) 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 01:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and redundant. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and unmaintained, not touched since way back in '06, when dinosaurs roamed the wiki. MrZaius^talk 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. T Rex | talk 05:35, 24 July 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:Allegations of apartheid 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 Close, see WP:DRV. Cerejota 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This non-standard template hinders the development of each article that is linked to it, by falsely claiming a link between only remotely related articles, when an article is debated others are automatically brought into the discussion, it would be better for the encyclopedia if it were deleted to allow each article to be renamed per consensus if required.. Bleh999 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been brought up in South Africa it is not difficult to spot Apartheid in the making all over the place. Discrimination generally occurs everywhere in subtle ways. Separateness was made nasty in South Africa because of the Apartheid Legislation. Can we make allegations of Apartheid about places where no Apartheid like legislation exists? Is social stratification Apartheid in the making? What about a list of countries with Apartheid like legislation?Gregorydavid 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic keep, and close Subjected to AfD on July 10, with discussion closing on July 18, less than four days ago. WP:DRV might be in order if you have concerns, since no consensus was reached, but this is a misuse of AfD.--Cerejota 06:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is debatable, there is no set policy or time frame for relisting a template for deletion, besides I didn't actually participate in the previous deletion request nor was I aware of it (if I had, you may have a point about abuse of TfD) Bleh999 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would dictate that, if a talk page exists, one would review it prior to nominating an article or template for deletion. It's not like it wasn't flagged with a link to the old TfD: [1]. MrZaius^talk 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bleh999 is completely wrong.

WP:DELETE is absolutely clear on this point:

Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."

Less than four days after the previous AfD was closed is by no means a "reasonable amount of time".

This is a snowball issue, User:Bleh999 is in clear violation of deletion policy, and the correct procedure has been pointed out to him/her repeatedly. The re-opening of this AfD after a correct closing is also a violation of policy. I am re-closing and expect it to remain closed.

I will state one more time...

User:Bleh999: [WP:DRV]] is your remedy if you disagree with the result of the previous AfD. If you remove the closing tags in this AfD, you will be subjected to administrative process for disruptive behavior. Thanks!--Cerejota 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let an administrator close the deletion request, this was asked on the administrator noticeboard, it's inappropriate for you to close it. The policy quote is ambiguous about how much time must pass before renominating a template 'reasonable amount of time' is open to interpretation, 5 days or a month? Bleh999 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, any editor can close it, and I am raising a procedure against you for disruptive behavior after I close it yet again. You should have raised a WP:DRV and were given plenty of chances to stop your disruptive behavior. --Cerejota 16:58, 21 July 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:Scroll box 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. Mike Peel 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than useless. Already banned from main article space because it causes usability issues. The Storm Surfer 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template already states it should not be used in mainspace. Serves it's purpose mainly in (ironicly) template and user space to organize lists and data. --Edokter (Talk) 11:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "banned" from mainspace does not imply that it should be "banned" elsewhere: only that it should continue to not be placed in mainspace. If we really want, the template can be userfied, in the same way that Template:Title was. (That one is currently at User:One/Title). No real harm in keeping this in template space, though. Gracenotes^T § 12:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor usability and accessibility. We owe our users better than this. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. That's why it's not supposed to be used in articles. Gracenotes^T § 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And why it shouldn't be used at all. — The Storm Surfer 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless we get a speedy response to the bug report. I considered listing this template for deletion myself, but that doesn't fix the underlying problem, and will just result in more untraceable div/overflow tags. That said, with only a handful of exceptions in image namespace, nearly every current user of this template uses it in a talk or user page. Could be userfied without only minimal additional harm if the devs can't or won't fix the problem. MrZaius^talk 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The devs don't need to do a thing. We have a wiki-specific css file for a wiki-specific "problem". Gracenotes^T § 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        On a side note, in what way is the problem wiki specific? Seems present on the MW 1.9 powered Wikia as well: [2] MrZaius^talk 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It only becomes a problem when we want to fix it :) Gracenotes^T § 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Storm Surfer, the same standards that apply in mainspace do not apply outside of it because you say so! I see no compelling evidence that the template is doing any harm. Gracenotes^T § 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose you are correct that there is no requirement for user pages to be usable (I've certainly seen a few that aren't!), but I don't see why we would want to encourage this. The accessibility concerns raised in the Template:Scrollref TfD all stem from this template. — The Storm Surfer 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's just it. The real root of the problem is buggy css that affects more than this template.MrZaius^talk 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template isn't the problem - The printable css is. I was already filing a bug report with mediawiki to request that they strip overflow flags from printable output, across all wikis that use the common print css and all namespaces. Give it a month, eh? It's not like this is being used in Main space anymore and, equally importantly, removing this will just prompt users to drop in relatively hard to find <div> tags in its place, as they have already done in main space. Why bork user pages and lengthy quotes in the talk page when we can wait a while and get this fixed in all namespaces? MrZaius^talk 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference: MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Disable_overflow_in_printable_version_of_page MrZaius^talk 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) And now the bug report http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10654 [reply]
  - Apparently someone beat me to it, but just worded it in a too en-wiki-centric manner and got it dismissed. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10239 Reopened original bug report. MrZaius^talk 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful and with fixes will be a great tool to have. Dfrg.msc 08:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons previously stated and also because I find it helpful to use on my userpage. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few remaining uses outside main space can be substituted. —Ruud 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, as it appears, the devs are unwilling to make with a fix, I'd say we'd better disable even the subst'd equivelant sitewide somehow. There's nothing preventing that from being used in mainspace, and it only seems to come to anyone's attention when someone adds it to a very busy article ala United States. MrZaius^talk 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have a better. and uyntil we've figured out how to do the replacement. DGG (talk) 22:36, 28 July 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.