Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

March 17 edit

Template:HappyPatsDay! 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 G1 deleted by User:Naconkantari. -Amarkov moo! 22:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is only useful one day out of the year, is better served by something in userspace. — Nardman1 22:33, 17 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:Blocked2 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 G1 deleted by User:Naconkantari. -Amarkov moo! 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template duplicates existing templates and is badly spelled. Nardman1 22:30, 17 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:Birinci Lig seasons 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, at the very least for now. No prejudice against recreation/undeletion when there are more blue links in the template. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a bad joke. Unless someone is prepared to make all these articles, then I don't think this is quite needed (there is only one blue link on there!). Of course, if someone is prepared to make all these seasons, then brilliant. In fact, if someone were to make a few of those articles, we could delete the red links and be fine. How many people would me interested enough to do that? — Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the 2005-06 one now, but I still don't see that this template is needed. I'm not making another one (it was so dull making that one...and it's only half done), so unless someone else takes it upon themselves to make more, I still think this should be deleted.
Delete until at least half of those have articles. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per demon. Also what does fb stand for, Fenerbahce? deniz^T_C 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I hate navboxes which are a sea of redlinks because either they will never be created or are not notable anyway. In this case, all the redlinks point to topics which are notable enough to deserve an article, and the necessary information is verifiable, just not yet added. —dgies^t_c 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then don't you think it should at least be removed from all articles for now then? It looks a bit bad on the articles. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 13:50, 24 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 section.

Template:Speaker of the Sun 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty much always useless, but now its accompanying article has been deleted. That makes it absolute useless. — Dooms Day349 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is an unused template, so there's no point in keeping it. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:38, 19 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 section.

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, nom withdrew. Gracenotes ^T § 03:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test edit

The test template and the others in the series have been superseded by WP:UW. They should be made into redirects for their corresponding uw-vandalism templates. — mrholybrain 's talk 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I still don't like the image scheme. At the least, userfy, since I assume that the overhaul was never intended to stop people from using customized templates? -Amarkov moo! 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion is at WT:UW, not here, and the straw poll is not over yet. (By the way, people reading this, please participate! Any input would be appreciated.) And also, Amarkov, there's a new icon parameter which you may be interested in. And you're also right about custom templates. Gracenotes ^T § 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep New templates are nice, but nothing at all wrong with the old ones. Out of habit, plenty of people still use these old ones and like them. For the person getting these warnings, "test2" is more succinct and to the point than the verbose "uw-vandalism2". I also have preference for warnings (level 1 and 2) without the images, and especially prefer the shorter names, "{{subst:test}}" (various version of that) rather than {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} (prone to typos). Another reason to keep, is that two sets of warnings give me more variety, so I can make sure they don't always get the same ones, among other reasons. --Aude (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But... if they redirect, then you'll be able to type {{subst:test}} and get {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Or am I missing something? Gracenotes^T § 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true, I think. But, I also think we should retain the old set of warnings. The new ones are not bad, but I have a certain way of dealing with vandals (alot of them lately) that I'm used to. It will take time to break old habits and get used to new warnings. --Aude (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, users already use the template quite often, so there's no use in deleting it. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Template:Test4 only. The other ones are fine as they are. Test4's message is way too similar to Template:Uw-vandalism4, it even appears to use the image. Keep the first 3 test templates.
Close this discussion pending decision at WT:UW concerning the redirects already proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview#T. –Pomte 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the poll. Please close this. mrholybrain 's talk 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close the /other/ discussion. I don't monitor the other pages, and I imagine most editors don't. Nardman1 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's listed on {{cent}}, and was posted to the village pump and that admin's noticeboard. Please join in the discussion if you have something helpful to add. Gracenotes ^T § 03:32, 18 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 section.

Template:Armed Armenian Organizations 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 No concensus, defaulting to keep. —dgies^t_c 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, doesn't deserve a template, taking space and its a duplicate of the categories.. Artaxiad 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still want this to be deleted? It is not a duplicate of categories (at least after you speedy deleted cat:terrorism in Turkey). It is not even a category. Keep deniz^T_C 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation templates are for characteristics which are integral to the topic, if everything that holds such a characteristic is closely related. For something like organizations in Armenia which were formerly armed, a category or list is better. -Amarkov moo! 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom. These Armenian organizations have characteristics closely related. These organizations were not formed in Armenia. All three are responsible in the death of Turkish Diplomats. They operate internationally. -- Cat ^chi? 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even more reason to delete the template, if they are not truly Armenian. They may be closely related, but it's not because they were formerly armed. -Amarkov moo! 17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are truly Armenian (Armenian diaspora that is). They are related because all three were armed and committed identical acts (they even had joint operations). See a similar template: Template:War on Terrorism which links to unrelated - yet related organizations -- Cat ^chi? 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They may well be related. I simply do not know the topic well enough to tell that without a close look. What I am saying is that if they are related, it is not because they ~~were formerly~~ are armed. Thus, regardless of the merits of these groups being together in some template, this template is useless. -Amarkov moo! 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you suggesting a rename? I am not necessarily happy with the title. I didn't want to call it something like "Armenian Terrorist Organizations" and came up with this. -- Cat ^chi? 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest that we rename it to "Former Armed Armenian Organizations" as all of these groups are defunct now. -- Aivazovsky 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Former would be fine but unnecessary. Should a new group is formed in the future we would be able to add it to this one. Also all three groups are inactive now, I am not certain if they were all disbanded -- Cat ^chi? 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are nonsense, these are historic acts as of now, no attacks have happened for at least 20-30 years, its a POV and possibly a fork per the articles such nonsense should not be created, not to mention your lack of third party and reliable sources per opposer. Artaxiad 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template, what "source" are you talking about? How can you call it a pov fork where there is no content inside the template? -- Cat ^chi? 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the other deletion here, my mistake, theres no need for this template, a category is enough. Artaxiad 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. I nominated "Category:Armenian terrorism" category for deletion so as to avoid "terrorist" name calling. I believe categorization would be problematic. You somewhat agreed with the deletion nom so I do not understand why you are recommending it now. -- Cat ^chi? 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we mean to include only ASALA, JCAG, ARA and their attacks, or will we include Armenian military or Nakhichevan armed organizations? What is the scope? deniz^T_C 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While creating the template, it was my intention for unofficial non-governmental organizations. -- Cat ^chi? 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not--Doktor Gonzo 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be legitimate, although a less ambiguous name may be needed. Armed Armenian Organizations sounds like it could also refer to the armed forces of Armenia. Maybe something like Armenian Guerrilla Organizations would be better. -- Augustgrahl 21:35, 23 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 section.

Template:Infobox Sheffield 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 delete, but move to the holding cell and deprecate first. When that is done, tag the template with {{db-xfd}} so an admin can delete it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by template:Infobox UK place which can cover any place in the UK. — MRSC • Talk 12:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to another better-designed template. Mr Stephen 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –MDCollins (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and superceded by at least one other template. DDStretch (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superceded by Infobox UK place. Possible separate discussion of adding any fields of value into Infobox UK place Pit-yacker 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andy Mabbett 14:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and as a un-necessary duplication. -- Nick ^t 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:ddstretch. Jhamez84 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Better to use Template:Infobox UK place to ensure consistency between articles and to aid maintenance. Adambro 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G-Man * 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The generalised UK template is entirely inappropriate for areas within Sheffield. Much of the information in it is made redundent as it is shared by every part of the city. The map is also useless as you cannot identify where within Sheffield the area is. --josh (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the reason why the template was created in the very first place. Well put. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion seems to have been superceded by Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place. Note also discussion at WP:Sheff --josh (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an option to put other maps in place, This is being done already for a number of places around the UK. You can request one for South Yorkshire if you feel this would be more helpful to the area your project is interested in. Your comments about a lot of information being the same for every part of the city may well be beside the point: any inconvenience that there might be would only apply to the editors who were writing the articles, but for an ordinary user who wants to know about a certain area of the city, they would have no need to know that the same information was duplicated across many articles dealing with settlements within the same area. This point could just as well apply to any other place in the UK, and yet the stated inconvenience, if there is any, seems mostly to apply to the editors, whereas it is perhaps better to re-focus on the display of information to the non-editing user of wikipedia. DDStretch (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As said above UK Map can and does do maps for various urban areas including Manchester (see Didsbury), Tyne and Wear (see North Shields), London (see Kensington), and Scotland (see Aberdeen). Other areas including already have their own maps including Belfast, and Northern Ireland as a whole. Additionally, I understand more are in development FWIW, I read somewhere that User:Jhamez84 had offered to develop a new clearer map for South Yorkshire, however,User:Captain scarlet rejected this offer. Pit-yacker 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still more than happy to serve the folks of South Yorkshire with a city-region map. I'm not put off by Captain Scarlet. Just message me if there are any editors who want one for the county to appear in the UK infobox. That said, the UK infobox is more than capable of showing local maps (see Salford for Greater Manchester, or Ryhope for the North East). Jhamez84 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit the map so it looks more like the Great Manchester maps (see Salford). The UK infobox is not necessary on Sheffield or South Yorkshire articles, since most info would be the same throughout, leaving a cumbersome box full of superfluous information. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how most of the information within an infobox for a given settlement or area is the same for most articles, since the names of the fields are not all identical, and hence the things to which they refer or which they label or categorize, of their interpretation are also different. Of course, superficially they may appear to be the same, since the same or nearly the same names might appear in a number of boxes. This may well be "irritating" to people very familar with Sheffield, but to the non-Sheffield user, it would not be so obvious, the purpose of wikipedia is not just to write articles for people already very familar with any given areas.

So, I think the view expressed in the comment I am responding to needs to be broadened to accept the well-understood idea that the infobox is intended for many different people, unfamiliar with the settlements or areas of Sheffield (because we are writing an encyclopedia), and, putting it another way, the remarks I am commenting on need to be seen as biased in favour of people already familiar with an area or settlement within the Sheffield area. DDStretch (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most if not all of Sheffield's districts have an article. It will be as Lewisskinner explained to you, a repitition to put, example local dialling code 0114, South Yorkshire Constabulary, South Yorkshire Fire Service in every one of those articles. We don't condolne favouratism but we believe readers to be smart enough to click on Sheffield in the introduction which rarely differs from is a district in the city of Sheffield, South Yorkshire where city-wide information is featured. Local information, different to other districts features in district, neighbourhood, area articles without infobox as we put information in sentences. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSo, the point that is being made really is one to do with editors' convenience, rather than readers' and casual users' needs, which an encyclopedia would seem to require. And the point you make about reader's being smart enough to know to click on Sheffield, where all the common information would be available is not guaranteed to work for other areas of the UK. In this matter, the UK is not as uniform as you think it is, and we cannot assume users know this. DDStretch (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems you mishunderstood what I typed above as I clearly typed that we type for the convenience of readers, not ours. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you read all of my comment, and see that the "convenience of readers" is covered as well. DDStretch (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're still off route and missed the point entirely, please think about where all the common information would be available is not guaranteed to work for other areas of the UK. In this matter, the UK is not as uniform as you think it is, and we cannot assume users know this.. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 06:05, 25 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 section.

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 G4/G5, along with the other England Squad templates he'd (re-)created. Shimeru 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England Squad 2000 European Championship edit

Re-creation of template(s) previously deleted [1] — Daemonic Kangaroo 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Better wait previous TFD end. Matthew_hk t c 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, speedy delete under criteria G5 - Pages created by banned users while they were banned. Punkmorten 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the more approriate tag be {{db-repost}}, for reposting previously deleted template? Ytny (talk) 22:21, 17 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 section.

Template:Command & Conquer: Generals 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not in use and totaly unnecessary since Template:Command & Conquer series covers it. — MrStalker 10:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another template already covers this series and more. - Nick C 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another unused/redundant. —dgies^t_c 00:49, 22 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 section.

Template:Craptastic 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 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-helpful joke template. Not used anywhere. This is certainly one of the crappiest and most awful templates produced by the Wikipedia community :) --- RockMFR 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN omg lol asap kthnx. Gracenotes^T § 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- omgf delete if lfm b/c if teh article = fubar teh afd lol. Gracenotes ^T § 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, add to BJAODN. I can't believe this took almost 2 years for someone to find. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN That's actually pretty funny...and wholly useless. Slap Linuxbeak on the wrist (with a stern "No! bad bureaucrat!") and delete this. -- Scientizzle 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before people notice and start applying it! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I can think of some articles that need it! Ok, maybe not, change to Delete, but can we at least keep the (redlinked) category? :) --Xtifr _tälk 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to BJAODN ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN reminds me of uncyclopedia for some reason... Mart inp23 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete & BJAODN - I agree with Martinp23, it somehow reminds me of the unencyclopedia too. But maybe it should be speedy deleted as if this were shown on any mainspace pages... that is the only use for it after all (reluctantly using the word "use"). Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to BJAODN. Serves no useful purpose other than to provide editors with slight amusement. Adambro 13:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template is teh suck. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from high orbit and don't BJAODN it. Whisp e ring 19:17, 19 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 section.