Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2 edit

Template:Super Smash Bros. 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 merge. IronGargoyle 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is repetitive because the template for SSB characters also lists the games in the series. - myselfalso 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely redundant to the left column of {{Super Smash Bros. series playable characters}} which recently had no consensus. –Pomte 05:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Super Smash Bros. series playable characters}} and delete. All we have to do is make the playable characters template more official looking. Joiz ^A. Shmo 13:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the other, more comprehensive template known as "Super Smash Bros. series playable characters", with a possible rename of that template to "Super Smash Bros." because it will be the sole template for the series. --Luigi Maniac 14:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Characters for one box, games for another box. They can co-exist, neither need to be deleted (ironic, I know). Games are in a much quicker and simpler format than as shown in the characters navbox. hbdragon88 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joiz. Gurko 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge as redundant.--Svetovid 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joiz. -- Keith Lehwald 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge redundant. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per comments above...I need not reiterate. Jmlk 1 7 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge seems like a good way to go. --ZenOfThunder
Merge I reccomend we merge it. OBEY STARMAN 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Super Smash Bros. series playable characters}} and delete. It doesn't need its own template. We already have a larger template for Smash Bros., so let's use that instead. You have no proof it was me. 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joiz. 리지강.wa.au 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the character template. --Bishop2 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's already in the character template, no need to merge it --MunchableSandwich 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge; it's redundant. --Sleepeh 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment If this is deleted, I believe this will set a bad precedent. Other fighting game series, such as Tekken, Soul Caliber, and Virtua Fighter, have games and characters in separate templates. I really don't see any reason why SSB should be any different, or why it is important that the characters be listed by the game they first appeared in. I should also note that delete and merge violates the GFDL. hbdragon88 17:34, 9 June 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:Religious persecution 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. IronGargoyle 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution is never a fact. Entire template is POV. There is no way to replace this with a NPOV template as the very concept is POV. Please delete. — Fourdee 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Persecution is easily sourceable as encyclopedic fact and is therefore not POV. Useful template and no reason to delete it as tfd appears based on a misconception of what persecution is re our NPOV policy, SqueakBox 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are articles named "persecution of xyz", then there should be no problem with this template either. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; however, this template probably does need to be shrunk or something. It covers too many topics right now. -Amarkov moo! 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template itself is not POV as it is a navigational list to articles on the subject. However the articles listed on the template may be POV if they are not properly sourced to reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that persecution is often a topic with strong points of view on either side does not necessarily mean that articles about it cannot be made neutral. This template purports only to allow navigation through such articles. --Haemo 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template is serving a useful purpose. People can read the details in the articles themselves. nadav (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is persecution POV? If someone dies for their religion, how can you say it's not a fact? --JDitto 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't want the template to be removed just the original research removed. I have edited the template and removed words unless they are in the article title or in the leader paragraphs. Anyone using any other wording that they pick from their own personal view or from deep in the article is doing a bit of original research to push their point of view by presenting a minor view. I have removed the heading "By persecuting group" and split it into three,

Notable events:
Historical perspectives:
Contemporary perspectives:

How do we know things are "Notable" - simply because they describe some event (rather than a place or person) and have a Wikipedia article, how do we know something is historical ?, simply because it says that in the title and how do we know something is contemporary ? - it doesn't have historical in the title or it's talking about recent times. Hopefully this'll be a better approach. Ttiotsw 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The direction Ttiotsw took it seems right, now it just uses the article names, so I can't see how this is POV. --Merzul 10:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sick of having to read the history of religion as a history of religious persecution. God really must have turned his back on man if people have enforced their beliefs only through violence. Especially in cases where my research into this question shows that the facts and their analysis are not vindicable at all, in the case of Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Even editing Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs is more relaxing than this. Zara1709 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then your problem is with the articles, and not the template. The template itself is fine. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is also with the template, as it gives undue focus on religious persecution. For the Historical persecution by Christians article I very much rather have the Christianity-template than the religious persecution one. There could probably be a small template regarding religious persecution in the article then, too, but the present religious persecution template could really be deleted. -Zara1709 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is as 'POV' as an article regerring to suicide bombing as terrorism. 85.73.217.146 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep needless nomination. Useful, used, and necessary. Jmlk 1 7 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Religious persecution is encyclopedic and can be documented. Some articles may be highly controversial but that is a problem with the topics not with the template. --Richard 00:40, 6 June 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:Solution and Template:Endsolution 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 both. IronGargoyle 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After removing all instances where these templates were redundant to sections titled "Solution", only four instances of the former remain in article space and none for the latter. In all four cases, the template can be removed with some rewriting/reorganizing of the contents. --Farix (Talk) 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kusma (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a puzzle book written for the readers' entertainment. Unencyclopedic and needless self-reference. nadav (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a listing of problems to solve, so no article is properly written in problem-solution format. And I don't see how it would be useful in projectspace either. -Amarkov moo! 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is pretty useless here. Hydrogen Iodide 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a glorified spoiler template, and in any case does not appear to have any really compelling use. Why are there puzzles that need answers in here anyways? --Haemo 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with a stick - cannot write any portion of an encyclopedic article on a puzzle without engaging the solution. Phil Sandifer 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Wikipedia is for Encyclopedic content, and such content could be highlighted with spoiler tags anyway. Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I won't say "kill it with a stick", but my feelings are along that line as well. Jmlk 1 7 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What are you looking for in an article that probably has such a template? Evilclown93 19:42, 8 June 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:Magic-spoiler 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 Avada Kedavra! ...err... delete. IronGargoyle 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of a disclaimer then a spoiler template. The template is a violation of the guideline at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. It is also redundant to sections titled "Method", "How it works" or other variations and can be removed from sections under those titles, or replaced with those section titles.

The creation of the template is not to warn readers before learning the secret of how a magic trick is performed, as is the case with spoiler warning templates. But it is mainly used as a reason why magicians should be removing the content about methods from article on magic or illusions, which doesn't really work. It also has the consequence of giving cover to turn these sections howto manuals (a violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO) as well as a degree of original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I would also point out that similar redundancies uses the spoiler template are being eliminated. The only difference between those templates and this one is that after the redundancy is removed, there will be no further use of this template, where as there can still be spoilers in sections where the presence of spoilers is not implied. --Farix (Talk) 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template went through a previous TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005#Template:Magic-spoiler
Delete I disagree that it is more a disclaimer than a spoiler warning. However, I think this template is more redundant than the usual spoiler warnings. First, because people visitors at a magic trick article are almost always looking to learn how it works. Secondly, I checked all the pages it's used on, and as the nom says, it is always used in sections bearing the name Method, Techniques of..., How to perform, How it works, or Explanation. WP:SPOILER specifically says not to use templates in such sections. So there will be no pages carrying the template after we remove the redundancies. nadav (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be replaced by meaningful section headers and is unencyclopedic. Kusma (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with stick. Worse than the spoiler templates, which my disdain for is well known. There is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a magic trick that does not consistently engage with the historical development of the trick, which includes its method. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What else could an article on a magic trick possibly contain? -Amarkov moo! 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's another glorified spoiler template with no real use. As explained above, it could be easily merged into the article much more neatly. --Haemo 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for this template whatsoever. Jmlk 1 7 07:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is too a reason, to keep those people who are against exposure (like me) from unwillingly reading exposure. As for what can a article about an illusion contain: what it looks like, who invented it, famous uses, performances in media, reactions to it, all sorts of things Deflagro 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make it bigger Everyone should have the choice to read only the non-exposing information about a trick. 87.91.98.215 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I don't get even get the point of the template. If you are looking at an encyclopedia page about a magic trick, aren't you wanting to see how the trick is done (I personally do). Therefore, I fully endorse the deletion per this and especially per Amarkov. Evilclown93 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poof! Needless template. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 06:23, 9 June 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:China Squad 1998 Summer Olympics 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 Template:China Squad 1998 Summer Olympics, Keep Template:Hong Kong 08 Squad. IronGargoyle 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming concensus against templates for non-WorldCup national squads. — Neier 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the relevant discussion on the football WP Project page, and User:Neier/Soccer templates for my updated list of deletions since then, for background info.
Delete all Neier 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hong Kong 08 - it's effectively a club team. ArtVandelay13 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --82.40.123.190 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The Chinese one to "Chinese Squad...", delete the other. Whsitchy 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason for keeping the Chinese template? Neier 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Hong Kong 08 - it is a club team in HK league. Although its formation purpose is for 08 Olympic, it is totally different from the team competing for Olympic matches. See Hong Kong national under-23 football team for the Olympic team in Hong Kong Checkiema 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Chinese one per nom. Punkmorten 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination of the Hong Kong team. I was under the impression it was a national squad, and not a club. Neier 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Now! This sort of stuff is ment for magicians only, not the public view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.235.94 (talk • contribs)
- I think you put that in the wrong place...... ChrisTheDude 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think non-champion teams should generally be deleted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and non-champion team. No need for roster. Jmlk 1 7 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consensus is that football squad templates are only created for World Cup teams. Andrwsc 08:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Will these things never go away! Daemonic Kangaroo 07:35, 9 June 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:Nobel prize longevity 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 already speedy deleted by User:Stephen [1] Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linked pages were all deleted as part of an AfD. Delete please. Whs itc hy 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncontroversial housekeeping. Pax:Vobiscum 11:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged it as such. Whs itc hy 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:35, 2 June 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 JTA Skyway station 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 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only large rapid transit services have their own infobox (ex: NYC Subway, London Underground, etc.) and the Jacksonville Skyway has only 8 stations, therefore doesn't need its own infobox and can be replaced by {{Infobox Station}}. — Dream out loud 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. {{Infobox Station}} along with {{S-line}} are more than enough for this system. nadav (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete use {{Infobox Station}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for individual city templates. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary template. Delete per nomination. Jmlk 1 7 07:35, 5 June 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.