Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6 edit

Template:Georgia-Russia 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia-Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is best served by categories, which in this case is Category:Georgia–Russia relations. Additionally, the main article, Georgia–Russia relations already has links to most of these articles already. Россавиа ^Диалог 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN, which addressed the nominators first issue with the template. As for his second, that is only the main article; the side articles I would guess benefit from the template, though I have not checked. I would even argue that the main article benefits, as the links are all kept in a single place, making them easy to access and navigate by, which is the purpose of the template. --Izno (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izno. - Nick C (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it makes it easier to navigate within the topic. That's the point of navigational templates, afterall. bogdan (talk) 13:50, 7 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:Unsolved 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 to delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template's addition to various science related articles poses questions rather than contributes actual content to articles, and is thus unencyclopedic. Suggest deprecation or simply deletion. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete-I agree with the nom, but it is also used in many articles.SRX^--^Latino Heat 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our encyclopedia strives to give the readers a good understanding of the current state of the science. In science, there are plenty of things for which there is no consensus because we don't have yet enough data. Why shouldn't it be encyclopedic to say we simply don't know yet something? bogdan (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but having a separate template draws unnecessary attention to it. This is something that should be in the article's prose, and not stated in the form of a question. To use the example on the template's page, it asks the following question: "One-way functions are functions that are easy to compute but hard to invert. Can one-way functions be proved to exist?" Instead of being separate from the article in a template and question form, one should insert this in an appropriate section of the prose, stating something like "One-way functions are functions that are easy to computer but hard to invert. It is still not clear whether or not one-way functions can be proved to exist." This is the way it's done in most fields of study as seen on the encyclopedia. The template is unnecessary. — scetoaux (T|C) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I think this style of "attention grabbing" is used in scholarly publishing (for instance {{cquote}}), but I do think it tends to be a bit showy for an encyclopedia. I agree with the nom's second comment, that the content itself is encyclopedic, but that it should be presented with less "flash". However, with it being so prevalent, it might be better just to alter the documentation to suggest incorporating such content into the prose instead. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the previous nomination. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination was over a year and a half ago, and cited different rationale for deleting the template. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you should have included that link yourself. Incidentally, some comments in the first TfD reflect your exact concerns — but the user who stated those concerns was in the minority. user:Everyme 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. What is encyclopedically relevant if not unsolved problems in science? It's a wonderful template. user:Everyme 10:54, 15 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:Cold War figures 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 to delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cold War figures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inclusion in this template is arbitrary, therefore POV. You can't decide who was a "notable" Cold War figure without having to be POV: Tito of Yugoslavia was a notable figure, so was Nicolae Ceauşescu of Romania.

Why aren't they in the template? Because in the POV of the creator, they were not notable in the grand scheme of things.

Also, it appears that no East German or French leader was ever notable? Why is Joseph McCarthy missing? He was very influential in the early cold war era, at least that's my POV.

We could go on for days adding "notable" individuals in that list and there'd be some other leader who could be considered "notable" within the Cold War era. — bogdan (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple (and arbitrary) way of deciding would be to go by Time magazine covers. If a leader featured there, they can be included, if not no. - Francis Tyers · 12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Time Magazine suggestion - Is that not likely to result in a US-centric bias to the results? Personally I don't believe that McCarthy is that important in the overall scheme of things in the cold war, but from the perspective of the US he is (I guess). --Deadly∀ssassin 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion does seem arbitrary. For instance, where's Allen Dulles? If this was titled "Cold War Heads of State" and was expanded, it might work. Thetrick (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This template is notable. If you don't like the contents thereof, edit it. 76.89.245.19 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please, please if you see room for improvement to the template or feel that the addition of a name is warranted, then add it. Is that not what Wikipedia is about? :) I created the template as a spin-off from {{Cold War}} per this diff because that template is much too long and does not have room for notable Cold War figures. But if an editor feels that a name should be added from any country, anywhere, then please take the initiative and do it rather than delete a helpful navigation tool. Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Inclusion is arbitrary, so arbitrary that this template serves little purpose. However, the Cold War template is huge as it is and it seems as if integration of the two might make for a very bloated template. I don't see a tremendously useful purpose for this template as a separate entity from the Cold War template, since many of the included pages have a minimal amount of Cold War content. So perhaps delete and recommend a re-working of the Cold War template to allow for inclusion of these articles (and more) without sacrificing usability. -DMurphy (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - In one hand, I think this template too arbitrary and nothing can be done to fix it in that way. On the other, I really like Thetrick's suggestion. Perhaps on the template description page or on the talk page the scope can be narrowed or expanded to a certain set of persons; heads of state perhaps (which it seems to have done well), or possibly figures which served in government (no prejudice in any way toward what ends up in the template if it is kept). Tbh, I think the talk page should have been consulted first for this template, to see about additions or subtractions, as Happyme22 suggested, and then brought to TfD if nothing could have been compromised. --Izno (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy enough to add notable figures to the template. Hard to control inclusion of every leader (and others) from every country in the world during the Cold War, since they are all notable in some way. The template should be more rigidly defined. Perhaps "Influential" figures of the Cold War? That's not so arbitrary. I think having the template with people in it is useful, since the people's background and other details are worth knowing for their influence on their actions in the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influential is as POV as "notable". The inclusion or not inclusion is decided purely by POV. bogdan (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Explain how adding someone like Stalin is POV. Just saying that it's arbitrary doesn't make it so. It's just like anything else here: it's got to have some relevance, and some import. We make these kinds of decisions all the time in the context of articles that we write and edit, and I don't see a difference for this template. Hires an editor (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wonderful ideas so far — this is a great example of how the Wikipedia community can work together. I think that a "Cold War heads of state" template is a bit too broad, for that title implies that every head of state during a period of the Cold War merits inclusion in this template, whether or not he/she had anything to do with the Cold War. And heads of state were not the only notable Cold War figures. I disagree that inclusion is arbitrary, as any editor can add a name he/she feels benefits the template with the ultimate intent of assisting readers with navigation. It's all about taking the initiative to do it. I think a reworking of the {{Cold War}} template may eventually be justified, but right now that template serves its purpose and it appears that it has taken a lot of time and effort for it to gain universal approval. I agree with Izno that the editor who nominated this for deletion probably should have taken his/her quibbles to the talk page first, where I, and hopefully others, would be willing to engage in discussion; I contacted the user reflecting that view. I like Hires an editor's idea of rigidly defining the leaders included by titling it "Influential figures of the Cold War", or something similar; can that be agreed upon? Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 8 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:Lieuofblock 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vague redundant warning template, not used in current Test/UTM systems, could be seen as a little more coercive than we would want to be with vandals. Also, administrators don't hold special authority to give warnings, so it creates a bit too much of a hierarchy IMO. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also, it gives the impression that we assume good faith with vandals who vandalized past their final warning (really, you can't assume good faith with someone who vandalized 5 times, repeatedly changing pages to a collection of profane words), and gives the impression that we are soft with vandals. iced kola^(Mmm...) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't think of any instance where this template would be useful for the reasons outlined by Iced Kola. --Deadly∀ssassin 05:16, 7 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:Vblocksmall 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal blocking template, unused in current systems, includes odd things like suggesting users disclose their IP address to blocking admins, generally redundant. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"odd things like suggesting users disclose their IP address to blocking admins"–do you even understand how rangeblocks and autoblocking works, or are you under the impression that all admins have checkuser rights? When a registered user is accidentally blocked as collateral damage from an IP/rangeblock, the fastest way to unblock them is by using their IP address, which is why many block/unblock request templates include this "odd suggestion". I suggest you educate yourself about the subject matter before going on a template-deletion spree. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also get a 6 digit block idea that an admin can feed into the unblock form. This unblocks the IP address without having to disclose one's IP, it is the preferred manner for clearing auto-blocks in line with the privacy policy. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen just got schooled. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did you check the template history? The template was created several years before this block ID (or "block idea", as your buddy calls it) was introduced. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in light of the IP unblock ID. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the controversial "odd" language from the template. Not sure which of the template deletion criteria Mr. Scott refers to in "in light of the IP unblock ID", but if the template isn't being used, it may as well be deleted. Will change to Keep if anyone is still using it. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 7 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:Wvc vandalnotice 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wvc vandalnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no such thing as "Wikipedia Vandal Control", bad use of a police badge icons, duplicate of many other templates. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implies that the user was reported to WP:AIV before even being told to stop. That's not how we run things, people aren't reported before even being warned. iced kola^(Mmm...) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Heaven forbid a new vandal patroller see this and think it is a valid summary of policy. I found the uw-vand1234 and friends very helpful for a summary of culture and policy. This one would have caused lots of disruption if it had been listed amongst them. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with all of the above statements. — scetoaux (T|C) 05:43, 8 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.