Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8 edit

Template:Dominionism 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Note Re-closed as delete per WP:CSD#T3. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is used as a "hatnote" on various BLPs to link to the page. As the term "dominionist" is controversial and at sometimes a person's dominionism is tangentital to their activities, this template violates WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prior deletion discussions were for very different templates. TFD1 and template of 13 August 2006. TFD2 and template of 27 October 2007 nomination. GRBerry 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Long problematical for BLP reasons in the longer form. The short form that appears to have achieved consensus is just a call to {{seealso}}, and is thus redundant to that template in appropriate usages (such as Dominionism#Persons and organizations described as dominionist) and should just be removed in improper usages. GRBerry 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yeah, WP:CSD#T3 applies to the current version, which has been stable for almost 6 months. I must confess a lack of familiarity with the template CSDs ... I've never seen an appeal from one on DRV since the German solution to the userbox wars was accepted. GRBerry 04:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being controversial is not a proper justification for deletion; How much of Wikipedia is not controversial? NPOV issues are dealt with by proper sourcing per WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Odd nature (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking substance and utility (in addition to the above reasons). It could be replaced with a "See also" link where it is helpful. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of deletion. In its current form, the template is a hardcoded instance of seealso, and thus a speedy deletion candidate under WP:CSD#T3. The previous form had serious issues with NPOV and sourcing. The difficulty with Odd Nature's argument above is that there is no good way to provide sources for entries in templates like this was, and efforts to get sources added to this template failed in the past. A list article provides more space to deal with sourcing and (equally important for NPOV) nuance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ON. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardcoded instance of {{See also}}. CSD#T3. --Thetrick (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some edit warring in the history, but that was seven months ago. Since then it's been a simple "see also" link, which should probably not go at the top of the article in any case. Either way, {{see also}} should be used rather than this, so delete. It's interesting to note that the so-called "ID cabal" has been involved here for whatever reason - Orangemarlin and FeloniousMonk in the edit war and Odd nature and Jim62sch here. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these being commonly associated with that group.) --NE2 10:08, 10 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:NHM 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, its a copyvio from Commons because he did not provide the edit history of the Commons version.

Secondly, this restriction cites Commons policy which is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia.

Thirdly, we have never cared about contractual requirements like this. It's not like they're claiming copyright over any picture we take in there cause its free to enter, and there is Freedom of Panorama in the UK. ViperSnake151 20:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is possible to delete it, because all (4) images that used this template have been moved to commons. --Snek01 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this template is more appropriately listed here, I've marked this as 'deferred' on WP:CV. -- Robocoder (t|c) 09:37, 14 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:NHL roster header 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) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL roster header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template as there is a standard currently in place for NHL team rosters. Nothing links to it and it hasn't been edited since 2007. — Djsasso (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused and outdated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure this has ever been used. Reso lute 17:26, 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:Local Government Areas of Queensland before 2008 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Local Government Areas of Queensland before 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not necessary, realised there is already template:Queensland former LGAs --Roke 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eligible for WP:CSD#G7. --Thetrick (talk) 02:42, 10 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:Jericho Morse Code 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jericho Morse Code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used as morse code is now included in the new Template:Infobox Jericho episode template. Incorporating these elements means that the edit link is no longer hanging and there is less chance of page formatting issues. Deadly∀ssassin 10:19, 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.