Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 7

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7 edit

Anime and manga character infoboxes (Round 3) 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 all. — Malcolm (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above templates have been orphaned on or before September 1, 2007 as part of an overall cleanup and merger campaign of over 60 character infoboxes towards a general anime and manga character infobox, Template:Infobox animanga character. Since there have been no known complaints since these templates were replaced, they are now ready for deletion. Template Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew character could be moved as an archive of Template Talk:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How many more of these are left? This is the 3rd mass TfD :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm still sitting one because it was orphaned just a few days ago, and 18 others to consolidate that I know of. But there are probably others still out there. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you must have a lot of free time on your hands :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did have some time on my hands. But the last week has been hectic, plus I didn't want to do this in a flurry in order to allow other editors to adjust and avoid edit wars. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wow, thanks for the cleanup. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nice clean up ;) Carlosguitar 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Yamakiri 00:45, 12 September 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:Country data Kurdistan 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first saw this template used at 2007_Qahtaniya_bombings#Reactions and appared like this Kurdistan Region. First of all. Kurdistan is not a country. Secondly, their is no "Kurdistan" government. Their is Iraqi Kurdistan (Which is what the article was talking about), but not "Kurdistan" alone. I suggest the template be either moved to another name or deleted outright. Chaldean 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it since many other places are in a similar situation if it ever became a country. More examples of proposed countries could be found at the List of divided nations. That-Vela-Fella 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. My living room is more of a country than most of those entires. -- Cat ^chi? 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and possibly update. The flag image is used on several pages and should be kept in a country data template so that it can be used with standard templates {{flagicon}}, {{flag}}, etc. If the target wikilink of Kurdistan is problematic, then the alias value inside the template can be updated and the template renamed (perhaps to "Iraqi Kurdistan"). But proposing deletion is a bad faith gesture, IMO. Also note that these templates are not used exclusively for "countries" (despite the template name), but basically any people/region/organization/etc. that has a flag. Andrwsc 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The country template has many more uses than just for "official" countries. --Drieakko 06:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename iff it bothers people, but I see no need for deletion. >Radiant< 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Æe tlr Cre ejl 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Kurdistan isn't an unofficial country either. It isn't even a state. At very best it is a flagless cultural region. On the other hand Iraqi Kurdistan is a recognised federal state of Iraq. This might seem like a minor difference but the difference is very fundamental. -- Cat ^chi? 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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:Oklahoma Sooners NC 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this template could easily be combined with {{OU Seasons}} and thus I feel it is redundant and unnecessary.↔NMajdan•talk 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replaceable by {{OU Seasons}}. Carlosguitar 22:53, 7 September 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:Teleserye 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Telebabad, Template:Primetime Bida and Template:Dramarama sa Hapon.— Danngarcia 17:50, 7 September 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:Table Biology Prefixes And Suffixes 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the second sentence on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." I have no idea why this was relisted. Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 8 September 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:Table suffixes 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Suffixes. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the second sentence on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." I have no idea why this was relisted. Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is navigation box. Most of navigation boxes are "redundant" because all of them naturally correspond to categories. Navboxes are more convenient for navigation than categories, so the nomination's argument is invalid. But I agree that navigation among suffixes, unlike, say, among articles on the {{History of the Ottoman Empire sidebar}} serves little purpose. Mukadderat 15:34, 12 September 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:Notpropaganda 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 consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory and WP:POINTy template. --Irpen 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - under criteria WP:CSD#T1 — Jack · talk · 03:45, Friday, 7 September 2007
~~Delete~~ Comment, too general, should be replaced with a [[Template:ContraryToRussianNeeSovietHistoriology]], no, that might be taken as a facetious, I propose [[Template:AntiStalinist]] which is the actual intent of the template. Perhaps such a "fair warning sticker" would cut down on denouncements of less than glorious portrayals of Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per T1 and G10 Alex Bakharev 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what's so inflammatory about it? Have you guys lost your sense of humour, or is it, in the words of a certain playwright: the lady doth protest to much? Martintg 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the "notoriously disruptive user with a past history of similar craft" mentioned above didn't actually create it, so I've struck that section. Martintg 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. An honest mistake on me, sorry. I thought better of Suva than stooping so low at the lever of that uses. Corrected the nomination. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Irpen 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep actually not connected for Stalinists or Neo Soviets, but created by request of someone on IRC with connection of some other stuff, but he will probably never get to use it. Might need better wording. But generally not done in bad faith. Suva 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and advise Suva to stop using IRC channels. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, ~~I now disconnected from IRC, turned off my telephone, blocked all sites except wikipedia and never will leave my room again.~~ Suva 07:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struct out my previous claim. Sorry, couldn't cope with it, I know I am too weak... Suva 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but replace with better versionKeep & improve and advise Ghirla to stop advising others. Sander Säde 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and advise Sander to make stupid remarks that don't help the discussion getting anywhere. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you insist that I'll do them, I'll try my best. Haven't done any yet, so how about this one especially for you "Avoid personal attacks and disparaging remarks"? Sander Säde 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and attach to all discussion pages frequently subjected to propaganda attacks. Digwuren 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything imflammatory. It can be reworked, but to delete it would be wrong. --Hillock65 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fixed the wording a bit. I hope it is more neutral this way. Suva 13:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep&Improve Looks neutral enough atm. Certainly not pointy and inflammatory. It might feel slightly pampering for one that feels or has been told to have propaganda related biases but other than that... Seems like a rather usable thing.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per duhbell. Why the heck was this even created? —Crazytales talk/desk 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Keep and advise people to stop advising people upon reading the documentation better. Useful talk page template. (thought it was to be used on articles, where IMO it doesn't belong) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It might be reasonable to say "this is a controversial topic, please try to avoid bias." It is certainly not reasonable to say "You were exposed to this propoganda, therefore you are now biased, go away." -Amarkov moo! 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O_O Are we talking about the same template? I read that template to remind that WP is not a place propaganda and NPOV is to be followed. Your complaint would have merrit if it was an article template. Is not, its a talk template.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading, the template says "This article is relevant to a propoganda campaign. If you have been exposed to this propoganda, you are probably biased." And that's not good, talk page or not. -Amarkov moo! 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ARE talking about different things. The Template was reworded and I never saw the first version. I suggest you take a look again too.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: the recent changes are a step in the right direction, but obviously not enough to address Amarkov's objections. At the same time, I feel the concept is valid, and if it were rephrased in an even less accusatory manner, it should be acceptable. Something like "This has been the subject of active propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Please study Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy and ensure that your comments and edits don't display an inappropriate bias." After all, we don't care if editors are biased; we only care that their edits don't reflect that bias. Xtifr _tälk 09:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:BJAODN. My first reaction was 'lol, bjaodn', but - as Xtifr and others noted - this is not only a joke. National historiographies have indeed influenced many areas, and this leads to many content disputes, some form of tag to warn/classify affected articles may indeed be a useful thing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what? This is a worthless template. It doesn't even make sense. It certaintly is very pointy, too. Cowman109^Talk 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while we need to represent all significant POV's, there is a need to remind editors that some POVs are derived from active government sponsored information campaigns rather than some more legitimate published source. Martintg 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid template creep: the existing NPOV templates are sufficient. DrKiernan 09:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Avoid template creep is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice. Martintg 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I agree with and endorse the essay. DrKiernan 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is obviously meant to be a joke mocking the editors that have shown an attitude on the talk page that their opinion is more valid argument than any source out there. Since it's not going to make any difference if this tag is going to be deleted or not, I can't see any reasons to vote either ways.--Termer 09:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with better-worded templates. >Radiant< 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, inflammatory, assuming really bad faith. Mukadderat 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a very strange language indeed, anticipating bad faith and quite meaningless: "If you feel you are biased by any such propaganda". If removed all this blatant disrespect to colleague wikipedians: ("if you are a moron, see how you may fix it"), then it is nothing but {{NPOV}} tag. `'Míkka 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very helpful and potentially informatory. What is a propaganda source is often in the eye of the beholder. --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per people saying "Improve", etc. I've tried to change it while keeping the intent. Especially, it no longer attempts to suggest that readers may be biased without knowing it. 68.39.174.238 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new wording is now just WP:BITEing. But the template still doesn't help anything. --Farix (Talk) 01:29, 15 September 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:Paradox games 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. Non-admin closure, nomination withdrawn. --MrStalker ^talk 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused, it has been replaced by newer templates. — MrStalker ^talk 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. - Koweja 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not exactly convinced that the newer templates are better. For example, Template:Victoria series: templates like that are frequently deleted at TFD. Gracenotes^T § 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, replace the new templates with the old one and then nominate the new ones for deletion. Gracenotes is right, there are really too few links for the new versions to be useful navboxes. IronGargoyle 04:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there shouldn't have navboxes at all. Why keep a group of unrelated articles in a navbox? Just because they are from the same developer? What would it look like if you put all games from Electronic Arts or Ubisoft in one navbox? The navboxes exists to guide readers between related articles. If they want a list of titles made by one developer they should just look at the article about that developer or in a category. --MrStalker ^talk 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such templates are useful. Make it hiddable and prettier, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:42, 9 September 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:Rollback 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. — Malcolm (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template that was originally proposed at requests for rollback, a rejected proposal. Unused, probably never will be, and should be deleted. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unusable since the policy was rejected. - Koweja 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with requests for rollback, aside from mention of the rollback tool. That said, I as the creator have no opinion on its deletion. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:35:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirect {{Rollback}} to {{uw-vandalism2}}; move {{Rollback2}} to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Template:Rollback2 (no reason not to preserve it). Gracenotes^T § 02:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{rollback2}} does not appear to be the {{rollback2}} mentioned in WP:RFR, which seems never to have existed. --ais523 17:46, 30 August 2007 (U T C)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I think, this template is replaceable by currently on WP:WARN. Carlosguitar 07:46, 8 September 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.