Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 July 29)
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29 edit

Template:Sortkey 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. Garion96 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sortkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally created when sortable tables were first available, but functionality superceded by Template:sort. Usage of this template was of the form {{sortkey|invisible key|visible=no}} visible text, but it is clearer to write {{sort|invisible key|visible text}}. Having to write visible=no for almost every instance was awkward and unnecessary. I have already updated all mainspace transclusions so that this template is already orphaned except for sandboxes, archives, and talk pages. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 29 July 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:Hiddenkey 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. Garion96 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hiddenkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per similar arguments for Template:Sortkey. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 29 July 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:Fairuse 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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairuse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused soft redirect to a deprecated template - let's delete it to help move people away from {{Non-free restricted use}} and move towards a more specific non-free content tag. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to hard redirect. useful on old revisions of pages, where a reasonable warning not to use this makes more sense than a red link. Kusma (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or leave soft. We can't use this as a tag since it messes with the production of database dumps containing no unfree images. MBisanz talk 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as some kind of redirect. Makes it easier to find the correct tag. --- RockMFR 01:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's used as a soft redirect to discourage use of the older name (making redirect transclusion impossible) but kept as a soft redirect because of the large number of incoming links from discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a significant part of the project's history and can be found throughout the older versions of pages. Retaining pages like this make it easier for future editors to make sense of the history. It also points old users (like me) to the preferred newer templates. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 31 July 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:Herb and spice mixtures 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 redirected Garion96 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Herb and spice mixtures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template.

This template was in the process of being merged into the {{Herbs and spices}} template by me when an other problematic editor, Badagnani, objected to the removal. A discussion whether to undo the merge or keep moving forward was launched by an admin, and after seven days there was no consensus reached on keeping the template separate so I continued with the merge. After I finished, I placed a speedy delete notice on the H&S mixture template which Badagnani removed repeatedly.

Badagnani then requested the TFD. In respose, I nominated the template with only a short summary of the situation, to which he replied with that I had done this without consensus or discussion in an aggressive move that went against community wishes; what he was really saying is that I did it without his consensus and against his wishes. Badagnani has a history of WP:OWN, 3R violations, edit warring and wikistalking, and this is yet another example of his abuse towards other editors in order to push his own personal agenda.

Badagnani's MO for situations like this is to bandy about wiki-buzzwords such as consensus and discussion in an attempt to make his own violations look to be legitimate. Please take a look at Badagnani's block log and you will see what I mean. This template more than qualifies for a speedy deletion, but is here solely as a result of Badagnani's disruptive behavior.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - editor chose to delete this template in an aggressive, unilateral move *before* using Discussion (although asked several times to do so); current discussion is split 50/50 between keeping or merging the template. Badagnani (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion on whether to revert has past the seven day period and had a result of no consensus, requests by Badagnani fall under deceptive tactics used by him. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personal conflicts and harsh words aside, having a separate template for spice mixtures doesn't seem to do much good. Spices are still spices, no matter how they're mixed. Peter Isotalo 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmmm..is this place for TfD or a battleground? (personal attacks are not good rationales for nominating the template) Anyway, I don't see why this template should be kept after the new one is created which is handy and increasing a higher accessibility for editors and readers without confusing similar templates. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because there was, and is no consensus for the deletion of this template and its merging into the Herbs and spices template (which was already quite large). Adding herb and spice mixtures to that template renders it unduly large and unworkable. Finally, consensus for merging and deletion would be necessary *before* the template was merged and deleted, not after, as the nominating editor seems to prefer. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:CANVASSing has occurred. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Do you have any proof that a convassing has occurred? As soon as I comment here, you seemed to leave a such false accusation against me. I come across here from |WP:ANI#Wikistalking - Badagnani just for your information.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At no point has any canvassing occurred, I did post a notification of the TfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink main page without any comment or opinion. I have not contacted any Wikipedia users about this TfD. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a dispute that would be better solved by a redirect (once the disputants sort out what wording is preferred on the respective Talk pages). Rossami (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently is a redirect. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for your input. Had consensus been sought, and obtained, for the merging and deleting of the Herb and spice mixtures template, this might be a reasonble compromise. Badagnani (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, I was unclear. Keep without an opinion on the wording or even on whether this should be kept as an independent template or as a redirect. The decision about the merger/redirect should be worked out on the respective Talk pages, not here. The fact that the initial merger proposal failed to reach consensus (or that the consensus is disputed) is something to be solved through other processes, not via XfD nominations. Once the decision to merge or not merge, to redirect or not redirect is made, however, the decision is part of the project's history and should be preserved. Deletion changes not merely the page's destination but also removes the pagehistory alltogether. Deletion, in the narrow way that we use the term here at Wikipedia, is neither necessary nor appropriate once the decision to merge/redirect has been worked out. By the way, this is true of any Wikipedia page, not merely templates. Take it back to Talk and sort out your differences there. If that fails, please consider some of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nothing that either of you have presented justifies deleting the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, mostly because others who might of been used to looking for the old template might be confused on where to find it and this will help those people find the new merged template. It looks like Jeremy already took care of this. I already voiced my opinion on the merge at the appropriate place.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:35, 1 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:Resident Evil locations 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article. Due to recent deletions and mergers, unlikely to be used anywhere else. Template presents no out-of-universe information and presents in-universe information as though real. Pagrashtak 14:35, 29 July 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:Film collapsible 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film collapsible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and obsolete project banner. — PC78 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 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:Shreveport weatherbox 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shreveport weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Redundant, single use out of date template. It was replaced with the standard infobox. — —MJCdetroit (yak) 12:25, 29 July 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:Psychoactive drugs 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Psychoactive drugs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The information in this template has been determined by several editors to be original research as well as irretrievably inaccurate, as such it is not to be used in the article for which it was made. There is a long standing consensus for this determination with the latest discussion here. I think the most recent move is towards the creation of a template pointing to the discussion not to use the info in this template. . . Thanks, — R. Baley (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Latest consensus is to use Template:Conclusion to document the consensus reached and place it at the top of the talk page to stave off requests to reinstate the chart. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sorry) per WP:NOR, and per misleading and potentially dangerous information provided within. Also, the way Thoric explained it raises more concerns over what the diagram is - i.e. it looks like a Venn Diagram but for some reason should not be interpreted as such (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aforementioned requests for its reinstatement prove that a consensus isn't entirely conclusive. --Thoric (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains original research which has not undergone proper scientific peer review (unless you count the numerous scientists that have commented on the wiki article talk pages against the chart); it is misleading; it is inaccurate. It has no place in an encyclopedia, or any other publication for that matter. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:NOR and also because the graph is confusing and also it appears that certain drugs are listed with properties that they don't have, i.e. inaccurate. It is too large and bulky and is just not "wikipediaish", no other articles have these type of graphs. It might be good on the author's personal web site but not on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:32, 29 July 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:Pacific 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pacific (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Until a few moments ago, only transcluded on a single page, South Sea Islanders. Now replaced there by {{Countries and territories of Oceania}}, so suggest the template is now defunct. — Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:15, 29 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_29&oldid=1138692654"