Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21 edit

Template:List of University of Alberta current faculty 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 not a template. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Alberta current faculty is a template sitting in article space, and is acting as article text, thus should not exist because it is in the wrong namespace, and templates should not be articles (or parts of articles) — 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:57, 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:Blpo 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only used in one article at the moment as far as I can see, and to be honest I can't see it being particularly useful. Any article involving the mention of a living person could have this. It's currently being used in the talk page of Heath Ledger. But how long will it remain there? Until every last one of his friends and family dies? Or when the "recent death" tag is removed (which is due, actually)?

I think that this raises a point though - about BLP violations in non-biographies. Many articles that are not biographical in any way mention things about people which could be said to be controversial and doubtless some are unsourced. Thoughts? At any rate, this template is redundant to the fact I raised in this paragraph.. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This template got created because everybody kept on using {{Blp}} for a dead person. After removing this tag many times (since the template is specifically for a living person) I asked why people kept on re-inserting the obviously incorrect tag. It seamed that new editors were drawn into the discussion because of its recent news and didn't considerer that some of the information being added was liable to those that survived him. So this template will most likely be used for high profile deaths to remind new editors that they should be wary of the information that is added to wikipedia & to make sure that the sources they add are indeed reliable. I doubt that this template will be used that often, but it serves a very good purpose when the news media draws people attention to a particular page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "WP:BLP does not apply... but WP:BLP applies, so libelous material must be removed. What is this template trying to say? BLP applies everywhere, so this template could be used anywhere. Editors who violate BLP are warned personally, those that repeatedly misbehave are blocked. Natural honeypots for BLP - biographical articles - are flagged with {{blp}}. But how do we define what constitues a likely target for BLP violations? There is no objective inclusion criteria, the template is self-contradictory and of minimal utility, and is is almost unused after two weeks' presence in a high-profile area of Wikipedia administration. Happy‑melon 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple BLP applies to living people and this is used as a reminder that although the main subject is alive please don't insert liable information about those still living. Its not contradictory but important for people to know the policies of wikipedia that normally wouldn't. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't support this template due to the precedent it's setting. It pretty much would require every biographical article with even the most remote change of referencing a living person would need to be tagged with it, whether it's Benjamin Franklin or Bill Haley. The only solution I can suggest is to repurpose WP:BLP to something that is applicable to all biographical articles whether the subject is alive or dead. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like all templates should be applied with common sense. I find this particularly helpful with non-bio articles referencing real people. It's helpful to target articles where controversial material and newer POV warriors meet. Having a well written template has helped calm discussion back onto content without target specific editors who were already on the defensive. It's also a newer template so that it doesn't have widespread use doesn't concern me as we didn't create billboards and a marketing campaign to promote it. Benji boi 08:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

In practice I think its useful. agreed, BLP does not apply to the subject of the article of someone who is not alive. It applies to still-living people mentioned in the article, but that is true to all articles in WP--the reason why we need this template is because those ignorant of the BLP policy keep challenging it. But there is no reason to treat bio articles other than that with any special reticence or precaution besides our usual policies. In the US , libel is inapplicable--and i think I remember that the reason was so that historical (encyclopedic) truth could be debated without hindrance eventually--a good reason. NPOV requires equal treatment of all subjects.DGG (talk) 01:13, 27 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:AniDB-P 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 was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another AniDB template that needs to be deleted as linking to this site violates Wikipedia policies, and a template only encourages such links.. Collectonian (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 06:46, 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:AniDB anime 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 was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted as it violates Wikipedia's policies regarding linking to copyright infringement. AniDB provides links to various fansub groups and downloading of illegal copies of copyrighted series.. Collectonian (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This EL template has actually gone unused for some time. --Farix (Talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 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:AniDB-A 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 was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted as it violates Wikipedia's policies regarding linking to copyright infringement. AniDB provides links to various fansub groups and downloading of illegal copies of copyrighted series.. Collectonian (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:EL#Restrictions on linking #1, links to sites that provide material that infringes on copyright should not be linked to, which AniDB does (see Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9#Linking to sites that list illegal files). Naturally, if it's not an acceptable link, we don't need templates that provide such links. The same goes for Template:AniDB anime, listed above. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This EL template has actually gone unused for some time. --Farix (Talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 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:Infobox churches and cathedrals 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 no consensus, not resolved. Of course, the option remains to being any one of these templates back to TfD in the future. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant as it is replaceable by {{Infobox religious building}}, which is more comprehensive. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stongly Keep : This templete may be needed by articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity for uniformity among articles for christain churches . the other Infobox {{Infobox religious building}} is too generic for use.

- Tinucherian (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Keep. A distinction is being made with the substitute which is rich in detail between the building itself and the congregation. While less rich in detail, the current template doesn't force that distinction. That is, there would most likely be only one article on the church and congregation. For now, for many churches, one article is sufficient. The building itself is merely a resource for the congregation (though it is probably pictured!). Student7 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment (merge?): There are now three related templates. {{Infobox religious building}} is geared more towards architectural aspects of religious buildings, including churches and cathedrals. {{Infobox church}} deals more with churches as places of worship. {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} is somewhere in between. Perhaps if it is felt that {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} should not be deleted, we can consider merging it into {{Infobox church}}? If so, can we identify those fields in {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} that can be transferred over to {{Infobox church}}? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - Tinucherian (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a fourth, {{Parish church}}, which is the one I've come to prefer. David Underdown (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at it. It is quite a well-designed template, but skewed towards Anglicanism. Do you think there's scope for merging the three templates together, without the template becoming too unwieldy? If so, which should be the "base" template? One possibility is to merge {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Infobox church}} into {{Parish church}}, then rename it {{Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Just noticed that there is another template, {{Infobox UK church}}, which covers much the same ground. I think that one is clearly redundant because of {{Infobox church}} and {{Parish church}}. I'll list it for deletion as well. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well {{Parish church}} certainly allows for the full range of Anglican distinctions to be made (and it's where my background lies of course), but fields like Presbytery, Synod and Circuit certainly aren't Anglican specific and virtually all the fields are optional. The clergy tiles certainly cover most bases as they stand, and it would be easy enough to add more if anything had been missed. David Underdown (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus that {{Infobox church}} is the best name for the combined template, what you could do is to create a sandbox at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, copy the {{Parish church}} template there, then start seeing how we can incorporate elements from {{Infobox church}} and {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} into it. Further discussions on refining the template can take place at Template talk:Infobox church/sandbox. Since my current proposal is to delete {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}}, you may want to start identifying the best parts of that template which can be ported over. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:05, 22 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:Infobox UK church 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used in any articles, and is redundant as it is replaceable by {{Infobox church}} or {{Parish church}} – see the above discussion regarding {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:55, 23 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.