Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16 edit

Template:PND 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 zu halten... I mean, to keep :) This seems to be transcluded on a lot of German-nationality type articles, and since Wikipedia often serves as a jumping-off point for further research, it seems logical that users researching German-nationality content may find searches of German information databases useful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used exclusively for external links. It simply executes a search in the German National Library catalogue. The entire site and the results are all in German, making it unsuitable according to WP:EL (not informative). The template was originally imported from de:wiipedia. — TINY MARK 09:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's pretty common to use some links that are in another language when article is closely related to that language/ nationality. I know the anime project links to Japanese sites pretty often. But since I am unfamiliar with these articles, and the German National Library, I wouldn't know how to evaluate the usefulness of this template and that site. -- Ned Scott 10:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The language is irrelevant, but a link to what is essentially a search engine does not constitute a useful external link per WP:EL. Happy‑melon 10:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The link includes the PND number, see Wikimania05/Paper-JV2. -- User:Docu
Starke Halten: Sprache ist irrelavant, es ist eine wertvolle Datenbank (strong keep: it's a valuable database!) --emerson7 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said it is suitable neither as an external link nor a reference in en.wikipedia articles. I'm not savvy with how templates work, but I do understand the value of the information that the database returns. Would it be possible to adapt the template so that it can be used without rendering any text so that user emerson7 can keep his äußerst valuable information? TINY MARK 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see how this can be useful. I see no harm in it. I do not appreciate the argument that because it links to a foreign language library it is inapplicable per se. The German National Library is an important institution that contains sources we use. I strongly ~~resent~~ oppose the rationale presented by the nominator that this is not informative. As for the objection raised by User:Happy-melon, this template naturally should not be used if the library doesn't contain relevant material. __meco (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because results are in a foreign language does not mean the results are not useful. English links may be preferred, but when dealing with German subjects it helps to link to German language material. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The results may be useful, but if, instead of linking to the library, the books that were useful were linked instead, what would happen? Linking/using a search (in general) is dissatisfying when specifically looking for information. To boot, as you have admitted, the majority of the works are in German. The plus of that is that it's contributions could increase NPOV if the book were to be used and cited in the work; the minus is that it obviously isn't English, and that first one must find the book to be cited. Furthermore, these sound a little like WP:ILIKEIT arguments. I will, however, admit that I haven't reviewed the templates' usage. Perhaps a compromise would be to add the catalog to the list of searches at Special:ISBN, if this is possible? I don't know that that would be useful, but it is what I came up with. :) --Izno (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my whole point. The template is used exclusively in external links sections, where it is unsuitable as a link because the typical English-Wikipedia user will not gain any information from it—thus being neither "helpful" nor "informative to WP:EL. As for the language being irrelevant, this is not the case for external links. It may be applicable for citations, but nobody has used it for that so far. On the other hand, it would be a shame to entirely lose the access to the "Personendata" it provides. I don't really mind whether the template is kept or not. I was hoping that someone more clever than me would come up with another solution for using the information, such as not rendering any text (see above). TINY MARK 13:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The German National Library is an important institution with lot of valuable and approved information. --Wikinaut (talk) 00:21, 21 February 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:User wikipedia 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 speedily kept ~ Riana ⁂ 11:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsensical userbox. Everyone editing wikipedia are members of wikipedia. This userbox makes no sense.. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per facepalm -- Ned Scott 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep its a userbox, it is not abusive in anyway. If people want to state the obvious it is their choice Fosnez (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and pie the nominator. This userbox is past harmless to YIMBY; why it's been nominated for deletion just makes my brain snap. Further, nom has been criticized for this sort of thing on his talk page; I do not understand why he continued. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought he was joking or something, but given that he honestly believes these templates should be deleted, I can understand that he wasn't swayed by my words. -- Ned Scott 10:10, 16 February 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:User wikipedia-editor 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 speedily kept ~ Riana ⁂ 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsensical userbox. All people in wikipedia are editors, So it is nonsense and ridiculus to specifically mention someone as editor. This userbox makes no sense.. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the nom trying to prove a point with all these deletion nominations? -- Ned Scott 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just working a cleanup process here. Can you tell what kind of point I am trying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk • contribs)
  - You're not cleaning up anything, you're making a big waste of time. The community has long since had consensus to keep these kinds of userboxes, and going through and listing each one of them for TfD or MfD individually is just stupid. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, especially which are templates, these nonsensical userboxes are doing nothing to help wikipedia, i.e. an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not your personal myspace. Please assume WP:AGF. I also support a new policy prohibiting creation of such nonsensical userboxes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That might be your personal opinion, but it is not something that the community at large agrees with. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are not assuming good faith here. If you live in X-place, if you like X-television show, you are creating an userbox on that. But this is not going to build an encyclopedia. You are using your editing power for making a vanity page for you instead of improving articles. I am against it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against X-place userboxes, but these userboxes are certainly unacceptable to a serious and international project like wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. Making such bogus and nonsensical userboxes doing no help in building an encyclopedia or improvement of the articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community feels that these things don't hinder article work, and that a reasonable level of "fun" is acceptable, and in its own way indicates things that user is interested in (such as Userboxes/Martian). They feel it builds community spirit and makes for a more welcoming environment. -- Ned Scott 09:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep its a userbox, it is not abusive in anyway. If people want to state the obvious it is their choice Fosnez (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and pie the nominator. This userbox is past harmless to YIMBY; why it's been nominated for deletion just makes my brain snap. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:41, 16 February 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:User LoonyMoonie 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 speedily kept ~ Riana ⁂ 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsensical userbox. Extraterrestrial real estate is a subject of fiction. No person can be moon citizen. This userbox makes no sense.. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:GUS. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Userfy —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Why are you hell bent on deleting user boxes? Milonica (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you hell bent in keeping nonsensical userboxes? I am not helbent in deleting userboxes, I am against nonsensical userboxes like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, just because you think this userbox, or that userbox is, in your mind, nonsensical doesn't mean it can't exist. You are not doing Wikipedia a favor by nominating these userboxes for deletion, you are stiffling creativity, and violating WP:GUS please stop. Milonica (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, pie nom. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:42, 16 February 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.