Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8 edit

Template:Current war 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 section.

The result of the debate was snowball keep Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current war (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary fork of {{Current event}}. Looks like it was created for the article on War in South Ossetia (2008) — Reso lute 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Look at all of the other Current templates. Are you suggesting that war is less notable than disasters, spaceflights, sports, or video games? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think no one here implied that. As for me, all other specified current templates can be deleted as well. I trust that the reader knows what specific event is meant from the context of the article. Vargher (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't consider the template to be more redundant than many of the templates in Category:Temporal templates (e.g. Template:Current disaster). I think it's a valid and logic specification of a generic "event". - SSJ ☎ 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. {{Current}} has a switch that allows you to specify what type of event is occuring. This functionality could easily replace this template. Reso lute 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed, the template is redundant - the more general event template is sufficient in my eyes. Delete. Vargher (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well...I succumb to the better arguments. Keep. Vargher (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become common practice to make these detailed versions of template:current, with unique images that include a clock. The template does not limit itself to War in South Ossetia (2008). - SSJ ☎ 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have {{Current}} which is sufficient. This is only used in one article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disregard that. Going with consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very typical variant for current templates

The template does not limit itself to War in South Ossetia (2008). Template:Event does not allow alternate images. Crossed swords is a generally accepted symbol of war/conflict - and is a very useful detail IMO. - SSJ ☎ 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; If we would follow past comments, almost everything and anything could fall under {{Current}}. And to the fact that there's just one article into which it's used... Give it a chance. It's just been created. Template is worthy and notable, IMO. --Deenoe 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example; you can plug the template in War in Afghanistan (2001–present), or Iraqi War. --Deenoe 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: {{Current}} template too generic, special consideration should be given to warfare for neutrality and other purposes. Oxygen (believe) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most interested to hear how, exactly, the {{current}} template is not neutral. Reso lute 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a question about having the template not being neutral, as much as the article itself. A template Current Warfare (which will probably be tagged faster than a Neutrality or POV template) also somewhat warns the user that the information is quick changing and that the neutrality of the article might be affected. --Deenoe 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have a special template for current sports related events, so why can't we have one for a more important subject? --Tocino 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Tocino above. Kingnavland (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We have other special current event templates, this one is fine to have also. Ostap 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If anything it will help with categorizing current events. There's nothing wrong about creating a fork in this context. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would mean all ongoing conflicts, even those who have been going on for years now, would need this tag, and I prefer tag-free articles which look much cleaner. - Pieter_v (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean that. Editors working on articles about old conflicts should decide by consensus whether the text on this template applies to the individual article ("Will this notice be helpful to readers?"). Some wars are undoubtedbly hot, rapid and organised. This template isn't forced upon old, rotten and cold conflicts. - SSJ ☎ 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example; {{current disaster}} isn't used on the Global warming article. People aren't robots, they understand the nuances when it comes to placing templates. - SSJ ☎ 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright if that's the case then I'm fine with it. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that {{current}} was seen to be too general, I see no problem with focusing. Further it is not, as I think was implied, a single-use-only template; there will be future wars, and there is no harm in keeping this template around for them. Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 09.08.08 0149 (UTC)
Keep -Zahd (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reading all of the comments above, I see no reason to delete this template. It isn't redundant or POV. Unfortunately, I have a feeling we're going to be using it much more frequently in the future. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (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:Michigan Public Media 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan Public Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting this template as it is not currently being transcluded on any articles. It also is a subset of the Broadcasting group in the {{University of Michigan}} template. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too few links to be especially useful. Mr.Z-man 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the Michigan Channel page, Michigan Public Media is a unit of the Universiy of Michigan - duplicates {{University of Michigan}}. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (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.