Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

October 26 edit

Template:Modes of Public Transport 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 Result was Redirect to {{Public transport}} Redundant template.

Template:Modes of Public Transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely redundant navbox with {{Public transport}}. They both have the same links, though this one is less extensive, and are therefore be appearing on the same pages. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:39, 26 October 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:Liverpool F.C. 2001 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liverpool F.C. 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedent. Citing the deletion of Template:Manchester United F.C. 1998-99 (see deletion discussion). – Pee Jay 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If every club had one of these for every season, it would be ridiculous. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but they wouldn't, would they, how many teams have five successful cup finals in a year? This legitimately binds five related articles together, in a neater way than a 'see also' section would. 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sure, this binds five football championships, but related articles? The only relationship is that one team won them. This doesn't belong as either a template or a see-also on the articles. It belongs as a statement/section in the Liverpool F. C. article. It's basically a POV template. It cherry picks titles and championships that suit the POV being pushed, excluding other championships held in that season that Liverpool did not win. Reso lute 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. add to text of LFC article--ClubOranje^Talk 07:53, 3 November 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:40th Canadian federal election/table 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:40th Canadian federal election/table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:40th Canadian federal election/table/test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant test versions of Template:Canadian federal election, 2008. Never completed before dissolution of Parliament. Kelvinc (talk) 05:18, 26 October 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:Singapore-English 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore-English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in talk space and the term itself is a redlink. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be used at Talk:Singapore Girl WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though? The term is not defined. If it's only used on one article, and isn't otherwise widespread, the correct solution would appear to be to avoid using non-standard language on that one page, not to write a whole template to disclaim it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There exists an article about Singlish, which mentions Standard Singapore English (I created a redirect). There is also dab page Singapore_English, and Singapore_English is listed in List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language. The template itself is currently used in one article talk page. So I am inclined to say keep. Ruslik (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, none of those actually lead to an extant page about "Singapore English". Until such point as we have an article on the subject, or indeed any more than one article purporting to use it, I fail to see why we need a template for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 30 October 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:Right-libertarianism_sidebar 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Right-libertarianism_sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a fork of Libertarianism sidebar with a number of links removed and links to conservative topics added. The conception of a 'right-libertarianism' seems to be the creation of a anti-property rights fringe in the libertarian movement (though the vague article on the topic shows that a separate template would be difficult to support)- examination of the articles the template is present on shows that most are simply mainstream libertarian topics- with the template representing a POV fork from the original. The replacement of the original template with this template on the Laissez-faire article is particularly odd. Good organisation would be best served by the replacement of this template with the original template where it has been added. John Nevard (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was going to propose myself because the use of "right-libertarian" is really more a personality cult thing built around one individual who promoted calling all libertarians who don't share every dot and tittle of his Agorism beliefs "right-libertarians." He is not very well known to most libertarians. Otherwise, "right libertarian" is used by a variety of people to describe some or all pro-property libertarians. In the first case it is overly precise to a fringe interpretation, in the other it is too broad and vague to be encyclopedic. Additional note: the editor calling himself "public square" provides an explanation that emphasizes the "original research" aspect of what he is trying to do, jumping off fringe sources for his own original interpretation. Carol Moore 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete The "right libertarianism" distinction is not significant enough to merit a separate template from {{libertarianism sidebar}}; for organisational purposes we are better off with just the latter. the skomorokh 11:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally made this template to distinguish the minarchist varieties of libertarians from the anarchist varieties. Since I specifically made a template specializing in anarchism (agorism), I thought that I should make a template specializing in minarchism. The original (prefork) libertarian sidebar contains both the minarchist and anarchist topics discordantly squeezed together, but most anarchists see the minarchist and anarchist movements as vastly different. I know that some libertarians do not see their ideology as left nor right. However, I think if we renamed this template to Libertarianism in the United States, the name would appear more neutral than "right-libertarian." American libertarianism is mostly minarchist and has a different origin. It originated from the conservative factions of the United States. The American libertarianism template contains specific entries related to the United States, such as constitutional republic, Fair Tax, States' rights, Green Libertarianism, Libertarian Republican, etc. PublicSquare (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a classical POV fork template, based on one editor's assumption that his particular nuances of classification are more important than consensus presentation of a broad topic. I don't intend to get get involved in the broad and sticky swamp of "which libertarianism is real libertarianism" debates, but I will note that the history of disputes on this subject require an emphasis on broadly supported consensus, not oen editor's preferred variant. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you figure out which position fits in the "consensus"? Libertarianism is a broad range of ideologies. Different varieties of libertarianism may require different templates, and are often incompatible. Sources indicate that there is an anarchist and minarchist distinction, which I think it is distinct enough to require different templates. I know that "right-libertarianism" isn't notable enough according to Wikipedia standards, but we can still rename the template to something like Libertarianism in the United States. I know that some libertarians dispute that mutualism should not be fit into the template Libertarianism sidebar, so I created this template to not include it.

Actually, the right-libertarian name wan't only my idea. There already exists a proposal of remaning it to right-libertarianism, but was already ruled out since it does not fit the notability criteria. I think we should propose a Libertarianism in the United States sidebar, since there is intense disputes on this template regarding ideologies including libertarian socialism and mutualism.

I think that the topic of individualist anarchism is notable enough to be seperate from the Libertarian sidebar, which contains minarchist tendencies. If you search individualist anarchism, free-market anarchism, mutualism on Google, it is very notable and distinct from the Libertarian sidebar template. PublicSquare (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename, as commented above, this is a minarchist template, so either rename is to Minarchism in the fashion of the Conservatism and Socialism sidebars. Lord Metroid (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no reason for a complete template being dedicated to what could arguably be called an oxymoron.
I see no reason why one would claim that such things as anarcho-capitalism and mutualism do not belong in the same template, since both are dedicated to a stateless free market. Their disagreement is primarily based on theories of value. Yes, they're separate concepts, but most an-caps see mutualists as allies, just as most mutualists see an-caps. Both see the other group as libertarians. Thus, we don't need a "right-libertarianism" template or a "libertarianism in the U.S." template.
If you think the inclusion of "green libertarianism," "libertarian republicanism," and whatnot makes the libertarianism template too American and not international enough, then remove them.
Yes, there are disputes between minarchists and anarchists, but like the disputes between an-caps and mutualists, these disputes are not great enough to disinclude either from the template. Further, it is a general consensus in the libertarian movement that the movement is big-tent enough to include both market anarchists and minarchists, so the difference is not important enough to create a new template for each.
Allixpeeke (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to note that I created the Template:Agorism sidebar and skomorokh finds this acceptable. Why not create a minarchism template? Market anarchists and minarchists are not allies. Market anarchists, such as mutualists, voluntaryists and agorists are non-political and minarchists are political.PublicSquare (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sockpuppet note: It should be noted this template probably was created by and defended by an aggressive sockpuppet of User:Sarsaparilla, i.e. "PublicSqure," using a new IP address -or more likely multiple IPs from public terminals, making it harder to track his newer (or old undiscovered) puppets. He has deleted my entry of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla note. This person also may be alerting other of his sockpuppet(s) to comment here and they may have commented here. I'm in the process of learning how to deal with this issue, including forwarding his private emails defending sockpuppetry as WP:IAR, getting check user going, etc. Since this is my first time personally dealing with an aggressive and devious sockpuppet, pardon if I don't do it quite right. Carol Moore 15:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not a sockpuppet. I deleted your entry because I am NOT a sockpuppet. Neither LordMetroid or Alexispeeke are NOT sockpuppets of mine. Just because you see my edits similar to other anarchists, you cannot conclude that I am a sockpuppet. Many anarchists have similar views as me. These users have accounts that are old. PublicSquare (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask LordMetroid or Alexispeeke, I did not email any private emails to them. I'm not defending myself because I'm "lying." (which I'm not) I am criticizing your assumptions like my alleged sockpuppetry, LordMetroid or Alexispeeke are my other sockpuppets, and sending private emails. (and these all are false) If you check my edit history, I only notifiying four other users, and all these accounts are created very old. PublicSquare (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol more also said that LordMetroid or Alexispeeke are probable sockpuppets of mine. She also proposed a deletion of the Template:Agorism sidebar. She said that it not notable enough. PublicSquare (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Just the fact there is a rogue sockpuppet like User:Sarsaparilla running around playing fraudulent games on wikipedia ends up casting suspicion on any new but extremely sophisticated editor, like yourself, who edits on 3 or 4 of the pages that 2 or 3 of [[User:Sarsaparilla]'s various puppets have edited on, including right-libertarian and now the template; B) I didn't mention which ones possibly could be "sockpuppet(s)" (corrected) and you didn't mention two of the people you notified; C) I didn't say "Public Square" sent me an email but the person behind User:Sarsaparilla; D) I did not officially propose deleting agorism template yet, only discussed it with one other person on talk pages, which you evidently read. My head cold is almost cleared up enough for me to figure out how to follow the correct procedures to get a check user or IP check or whatever, including based on the private emails from the offending individual boasting about his right to use sockpuppetry. In the interim, in case I am correct, I'd hate to see sockpuppetry negatively affecting this discussion. So if you are innocent, you are a victim of User:Sarsaparilla. Carol Moore 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can assure you all, I am no sockpuppet. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:09, 28 October 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.