Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2 edit

Template:Bernard Nathanson 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 discussion was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Though I technically could have given this a second relist, it's already been open for about a month, which is longer than the three weeks that two relists are supposed to accommodate. I consider that long enough. Thus since I couldn't really read a consensus in all of this, I'm closing it as no consensus, meaning we're back at the status quo before this discussion started. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bernard Nathanson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another pointless template created after the snow deletion of Template:Bernard Nathanson films. Very small number of articles (there are actually four, not five - The Hand of God is a dab page) which is not going to grow; most are already interlinked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This navbox seems entirely unnecessary, as it focuses on a small number of articles which are already closely interlinked. Since Nathanson is deceased, there will be no additional links forthcoming. Template:Bernard Nathanson films was deleted by clear consensus only a day or two ago, and this template was created immediately thereafter by the same editor, which raises some concern in my mind about WP:POINT and editorial motivations. Clearly there seems to be a consensus that we don't need a navbox on this obscure, although politically charged, subject. Regardless of motivations, though, the navbox is clearly unneeded and should be deleted. MastCell Talk 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's one thing to harbor reservations about an editor's motivations in your mind, but isn't it a violation of assume good faith to post them on a talk page? I think you've crossed the line and are engaging in personal attacks. – Lionel (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assume good faith applies up until a certain threshold is crossed. Perhaps my threshold is lower than most. Regardless, as I said, I think there are clear content-based arguments to delete the template. MastCell Talk 20:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely useful template passes WP:CLN, WP:NAV, and my rule of five at WP:NENAN. WP:CLN does not say anything about expansion. However it does state "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles." Well, this certainly qualifies under that requirment. Also, the nav box passes all 4 tests. Note there are 5 links: The Hand of God is fixed. There is just no rationale grounded in policy for deletion. The reason offered, a snow delete of another template, is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. – Lionel (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mention in part because you made almost exactly the same argument about Template:Bernard Nathanson films as you're making here (even down to the same typo on "requirment" - did you just cut-and-paste it?) The only difference is that you've added 3 more links, to satisy the letter of the rule of five. But I think that if you read WP:NENAN for its actual content, rather than as a literal hoop through which to jump, you'll understand why this set of articles doesn't need a navbox. MastCell Talk 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from your point being based on OTHERSTUFF, substantial content on Wikipedia consists of recreated articles which have been improved following a deletion discussion. There is nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary in heeding suggestions from CfD to create an improved template.

        NENAN is an essay. The template passes CLN, a guideline.– Lionel (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • But it's not OTHERSTUFF - this is the same stuff, slightly repackaged. That's my point. You're explicitly not heeding the feedback from the previous deletion discussion, because the feedback there was that this topic isn't expansive enough to warrant a navbox. As for NENAN, I'm not sure why you're now dismissing it as just "an essay". If you didn't think it held valuable advice, why did you cite it in your "keep" !vote? MastCell Talk 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not "repackaged" but expanded and thus improved. The topic is expansive enough for a template with 5 highly relevant links. Let me repeat that: 5 links. The now improved template passes WP:CLN, WP:NAV, etc.– Lionel (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As pointed out earlier (below), template does not satisfy WP:COP because subject is not "very notable". AV3000 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link to NARAL is inappropriate, just as unnecessary as would be a link to National Right to Life Committee, Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, expert witness or medical malpractice. Thus, the template only has four useful links, and the two films have little to do with the two books, and vice versa. The elements of this template do not refer to each other. Per WP:NENAN, the template does not need to exist. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • NARAL link is extremely helpful, since he founded NARAL. – Lionel (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He helped form NARAL along with a group of other people—he was not the sole founder. I continue to consider the NARAL link useless to the reader, as it does not connect to Nathanson's books or films. It appears the NARAL link was inserted as filler, to pad the navbox and bring its total number of elements to five. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes applicable policies. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policies might those be? WP:CLN says "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles..." How well-defined is a link to NARAL—a group that has never produced an anti-abortion film or book—and two anti-abortion books plus two anti-abortion films? The template is not made up of a "well-defined group of articles" unless NARAL is removed. Once NARAL is removed, the template is too small. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep: "Extremely useful"? Not really. The NARAL link? Only minor relevance. But even though it's a borderline case of passing policy/guideline/essays, its existence does not a whit of harm to the encyclopedia. AV3000 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NARAL's "minor relevance" is in relation to Nathanson, not the listed books and films. NARAL is of no relevance to the books and films, and it does not fit in with the guideline at WP:CLN recommending templates be used for well-defined groups of articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This more general category would concern Nathanson's life/work as a whole, not exclusively his books and films (e.g. Template:Ronald_Reagan.) However... (followup below) AV3000 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:COP guideline says "In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln." This person is in no sense a very notable case, so I've struck my vote. AV3000 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is helpful in navigating to the various articles relating to Bernard Nathanson. I'm not sure why deleting this template would be beneficial to readers. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I haven't seen the other template, this looks for all the world like an attempt to circumvent consensus by recreating essentially the same template under another name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument hinges on a TFD that you didn't even bother to take the time to read even though it was wikilinked above in this very thread! Your accusation of "circumvent consensus" is rude, uncivil and unfounded. The objection raised at the other TFD was that at 2 links it was too small and violated WP:NENAN. A voter there mentioned "per my rule of five." This template is much improved and has 5 links. But wait: you never bothered to click the link and read the other TDF, so how would you know this?

      I hope the closing admin devotes as much effort into evaluating your vote as you did when you posted your vote. – Lionel (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shorter Lionelt: I didn't hear that. Recreation of a template deleted only this week. The repeated attempts to shout down, contradict or wikilawyer the comments of others ignores the forest for the trees: navboxes can be useful navigational tools, but should be used in moderation where required rather than used wherever possible. The articles covered by this navbox are already interlinked closely enough to obviate the need for an additional navigational tool, and the presence or absence of a navbox is not to be taken as some sort of judgement on the subject matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, despite closely monitoring this discussion, he hasn't addressed WP:COP's provision that person-named templates occur in "certain very notable cases"; restated again above. AV3000 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:COP applies to categories, not templates. – Lionel (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • D'oh - regrets for my error & resulting messy strikeouts. AV3000 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The navbox comes close to meeting the bare minimum requirements of WP:CLN and WP:NAV, but the articles just aren't closely enough related to each other. Most of the links are already in the "Works" section of the Nathanson article, and the NARAL link can go in a "See also" if needed. — Bility (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2011 (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:Big Sky Conference fight song navbox 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Sky Conference fight song navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is/was a template that linked to the lyrics of uni fight songs which have now been removed as per WP:NOTLYRICS and probable copyvio, the template now is redundant. Mtking (edits) 03:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that no other template in the entire Category:American college fight song navigational boxes is nominated for deletion. The fact that this category should be allowed to exist at all seems contrary to Mtking's interpretation of Wikiregulations. I also can't help but notice that Mtking went specifically through only this conference's fight songs and deleted everything (no other conference) despite only three of them being added recently. Could this blatant bias be explained before deleting the template?Dsetay (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I am getting there, give me some time :-). Oh and have a quick look at my user page, I am NOT from the US. Mtking (edits) 04:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, all but one of the links is to a section (often non-existing) in a larger article, so the songs themselves do not appear to be notable enough to have their own articles. If the same could be said about the other templates in category:american college fight song navigational boxes, then nominate those as well, but in a separate nomination. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're no longer existing because the person above selectively deleted them. I notice he's from Australia and also decided some of the oldest and most well-known fight songs in the country were not notable. How is one expected to convince a mass of editors who have no problem accepting every character from Star Trek as notable and who have likely never seen a college football game that fight songs are well-known and of interest to a large portion of the American public?Dsetay (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navboxes that don't go to the pages they imply they go to are not helpful but instead add to the clutter that is Wikipedia. No prejudice to re-create the navbox once the articles for the songs are actually in place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment about avoiding clutter, but I assure you that all these links did lead somewhere before a couple editors arbitrarily decided that fight songs were suddenly "unencyclopedic". Not only is "unencyclopedic" not a word, it is antithetical to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia: "to be a reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Moreover, to claim that songs that are often over a hundred-years old and well-known to tens of thousands of alumni around the world and of interest to many more that they are not notable is equally absurd. I will gladly create and recreate pages to meet common-sense standards so that the links of this template no longer lead to nowhere. However, if a random editor gets to decide that since he's not heard of it then it must not be notable, then what is the point? I could go and suggest deletion for hundreds of manga and star trek characters, but I know that there are people who care about and interested in those things even if I am not. I appreciate the availability of that information that 99.5% of the population will never bother looking up because someone may indeed find that useful. Same goes for the invention of the zipper. How can I be assured that that same editor won't just delete them again out of spite (it's certainly not out of conviction because he quit deleting part-way through), so that I don't waste my time?
    • Just follow policy. There is a deletion review process that would be a good place to start. I don't have time to check into it for the moment, but that should be enough for you to get the ball rolling.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:CLN: 1) navboxes are for links to articles, not article sections, and certainly not duplicate links to the same articles, 2) there should be an article on the subject of the template and 3) the articles should mention the subject of the template. As a navigation tool, the links are misleading and may cause confusion to readers. Lastly, this template is redundant to {{Big Sky Conference navbox}}, which has links to all these same articles. — Bility (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2011 (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:PD-TR-Gov 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 discussion was delete, and replace with {{PD-old-70}} where appropriate. Where this is not appropriate, CSD tag or send the files to FFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-TR-Gov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Highly problematic "public domain" licensing template for Turkey. This template claims that works that have been "declared to be national heritage by the Government of Turkey" are considered to be in the public domain. According to discussion related to the parallel template on Commons (commons:Template:PD-TR), this can only refer to Article 47 of the Turkish Copyright Law (English textTurkish text), which speaks of the possibility that the economic rights to some works may be expropriated if they are relevant to national cultural heritage.

This is problematic on several counts:

  • Most images tagged with this template have been tagged totally at random, apparently in the mistaken belief that anything taken from a Turkish government website is PD. Most of these images are plain copyvios.
  • Apparently much of the motivation behind the creation of this template has been the belief that there is a general blanket allowance in Turkey for free use of images of Atatürk. While this may be true or not (and many Atatürk photographs are doubtless PD-old-70 anyway), nobody has ever pointed to an actual rule or law to this effect, and wherever this idea comes from, it certainly doesn't follow from anything in the Copyright Law.
  • What article 47 does say is that this type of expropriation is valid only for some individual works and that it is done through a formal public decree that must specifically name the work. In not a single case of any image tagged with this template has the uploader given any references to such a decree or otherwise demonstrated that the work in question has been expropriated under this law.
  • Even if expropriation could be demonstrated for an individual work, I very much doubt it would amount to a public domain status anyway. What article 47 says is that the Turkish state takes over the economic rights of a work from its owners. It doesn't say it then releases them into the public domain. In fact, it clearly speaks of state agencies continuing to manage these economic rights, and of money that will still be earned from the continued charging of licensing fees. This is about ownership by the state, not about free status.

I propose to delete the template and tag all images as "no license". Some of them may turn out to be PD-old on independent grounds, most of them probably not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-TR-Gov is used incorrectly and arbitrarily in Wikipedia, even in Commons (for example: A, B, C etc.). Its function is partially same with of Template:PD-old-70 (life of the author plus 70 years). But partially different (If the first copyright holder was "juridical person" (non-natural person) the protection period is 70 years from the date of publicity.). About the title of this template, I think Template:PD-TR is more comprehensive. As I've mentioned at the talk page of Turkish Navy, copyrights of governmental institution are protected by copyright low, if it is not specified that they abandoned their properties. The national anthem (İstiklâl Marşı) became a public domain with the special exception amendment in December 2010. (İstiklal Marşı, "kamu malı" oluyor). Some images are public domain not because the holders of copyrights are governmental institution, but simply because of the expiration of a term in accordance with the Turkish copyright low. So Template:PD-TR-Gov is not appropriate. Takabeg (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 70 year expiration rules are actually pretty much identical with those in most other European countries, including the rules for collective and anonymous authorship. We wouldn't need an extra template for that, normal PD-old-70 will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But all files currently tagged with this will have to be scrutinized if they really qualify for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, and nominate tagged files at WP:FFD. I changed the ones that are older than 70 years to {{PD-old-70}}, so the rest should be scrutinized and sent to WP:FFD. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (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:Abuse cases 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 discussion was userfy to facilitate splitting into multiple, more targeted templates. There is some consensus that this template is too broad in scope, but that the general idea of having "abuse templates" would be useful for navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abuse cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating for deletion. Template suffers from problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. We already have Template:Abuse, which does a good job of providing links to the pages about the various categories of abuse. Those pages, in turn, often carry useful templates or other links about related cases (an example being Template:Bullying). Problems arise when pages about individual cases, that are characterized as being related in some way to one of the sub-categories of abuse, are placed in the template discussed here. For example, the template lists pages such as Suicide of Tyler Clementi as bullying abuse, where editors have a local consensus that the page is not really treated by the available sources as being about what most readers would understand as abuse. In its present state, concerns have been raised that it implies an undue role of Christian denominations in abuse. Much of the present content of the template could perhaps be moved to a new Template:Child sexual abuse cases, but having a catch-all template for all putative abuse cases is unlikely to be workable. According to discussion on the template talkpage, Abuse includes 108 kinds of abuse. If the template is expanded as planned, it could eventually have 108 sections, each with dozens of pages listed, which would be un-navigable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The template is certainly overloaded with catholic sex cases - I totally agree i would move them to another template but to complicate matters we already have {{SACC}} and User:Timtrent doesnt agree. Maybe it is an idea to incorporate the catholic sex abuse cases in to {{SACC}} - thinking about it more i think it is the best idea although not ideal, there could be a link from {{Abuse cases}} to {{SACC}} for catholic sex abuse cases. There are not many Wiki articles on proven abuse cases that did not involve catholic sex cases. There are some school articles with sections on child physical abuse scandals which could be included. The idea that all 108 types of abuse listed in Abuse would be represented here is ludicrous. Also the idea that bullying is not abuse is ludicrous - for starters it is listed in abuse. Bullying is a socially defined construct relating to a combination of certain types of abuse such as intimidation.--Penbat (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About "ludicrous", editors may want to look at the template talk page, and at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. The problem is the WP:CIRCULAR argument that everything that is listed in Abuse is always going to be abuse, regardless of what the sources on the specific incident say. It's true that bullying often is a form of abuse. It's also true, however, that there are shades of gray in how sources do or do not characterize a particular incident as "bullying". It's a false syllogism to go from saying that a page deals with issues relevant to bullying, to concluding that the page is about an "abuse case". And this problem is not specific to bullying. If all 108 types are not to be included in this template, then what are the criteria by which some will be included and others excluded? And what is the need to have this template at all, given that we have Template:Abuse and templates for individual types of abuse cases? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the flaws in your argument are self-evident and i thought i already spelt out the main points. Hardly any of the 108 abuses have their own templates. Many abuses such as "teasing", "taunting", "insulting" and "rudeness" dont actually break any laws are hardly likely to have an accompanying proven notable legal case for which somebody has written a Wikipedia article on. For there to be a link in this template not only does there have to be a proven notable legal case but also somebody has to have written a Wiki article on it. The number of suitable articles which dont involve catholic sex cases are few and far between and likely to remain so. As for suicides relating to bullying, laws may also not have been broken but the legal enquiry would have established that bullying or abuse took place.--Penbat (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we have heard from the nominator for deletion (me) and the creator of the template. We need to hear from other editors now. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent has had a major involvement in this template and deserves a say. I have put a link to here on his talk page but he hasnt been online for a while. --Penbat (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split, narrow the focus, or delete. The template is too broad. It is not clear that there is enough in common between prison abuse and child sexual abuse (for instance) that one would really be likely to navigate from one to the other. Such broad categories are better handled by the categories system.
The section on {{Sexual abuse cases in Roman Catholic Church}} should be split into a separate template. One user above expressed concern about relation to {{Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church}}, however there appears to be very little overlap. (Or one might consider splitting into a template on child sexual abuse cases. Have one section for Roman Catholic, and one section for everything else.)
For the other abuse portion - If there are coherent subsections, they could be split into separate templates, otherwise just delete that portion. Zodon (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have addressed the issue of splitting due to overload with Catholic sex scandals a couple months before, however, no progress have been made. I suggest creating a number of more specific templates and deleting this one.--Rafy talk 08:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand competently Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to incompetently? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The elephant in the room is the overbearing dominance of catholic sexual abuse cases in Template:Abuse cases. It would make a lot of sense to move them out into Template:Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church as a first step and then later review what to do with the remainder of Template:Abuse cases.--Penbat (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too large to be usefull. Template spam. - Nabla (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Tryptofish, User:Zodon, User:Rafy and myself all support the idea of moving out all the catholic sex stuff to another template. That would leave this template hugely smaller and would resolve your "too large" concern. --Penbat (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that misrepresents what I have said. I, as well as all of the uninvolved editors who have commented here, favor deletion. Really, it's time for uninvolved editors, rather than the authors of the template, to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having a catch-all template for all putative abuse cases is unlikely to be workable", you said it, I agree. Thus the delete vote. Obviously there is nothing against trying to make a substantially shorter version, but it probably will be easier starting from scratch. - Nabla (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense to me to make this a 2 stage process. First move out all the catholic sex stuff and at a later stage discuss whats left.--Penbat (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. But it also makes sense to delete and start from scratch. Actually they'd be different paths to similar outcomes, as there is nothing against creating a substantially different template under this same name, should it be deleted and there is not much, if anything, to keep from this one('s content). - Nabla (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Penbat, I note that my nomination already addresses what would be left. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far, far too broad to be of use as a navigational template. Even if it were just limited to child abuse in religious organisations (which I expect was the original intention of the template), it would still arguably be too broad. We already have a template for the Catholic child abuse cases, which are the most significant subset of this template; we don't need this one, which links in various tangentially-related cases in a presumed misguided attempt at neutrality. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2011 (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:Madame Kovarian stories 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Madame Kovarian stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
she appears in two main stories, the rest just cameos. Notable to series 6 but is not like the Daleks or River Song (yet if she reappears. Big crystal ball for the template thus now), frequently reoccuring and important etc. At time of nominating only on one article and that's the characters page. Globalwheels (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Delete Totally unnecessary, a recurring character but not relevant enough for this (not to mention her significant appearances are all River Song stories. U-Mos (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant as the text mentions all relevant stories, minor character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.34.179 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are too many of these 'Doctor Who stories' templates already, meaning some episodes have a whole stack of them at the bottom. I really don't think one is needed for this character, who only plays a major role in a couple of episodes. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2011 (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:VIVA Stations 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VIVA Stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly red links to articles deleted here and here or redirects to Other Vivastations, which is also nominated for deletion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Although it is mostly redlinks, it does still have a considerable number of live links (non-redirects)? Are the rest of the articles going to be deleted? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This template now only has live links to York Region Transit bus terminals which, as noted above, are connected by their own navigation template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (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:WCISD 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very small rural school district with three schools. I just consolidated the three school articles into the district article. There's now only one related article. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (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:Husqvarna motorcycles 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Husqvarna motorcycles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No changes to this template since it was created over two years ago. All the articles remain red links as none of the listed articles have been created. Given that this two year old template points absolutely nowhere I don't see what value it adds to Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2011 (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_discussion/Log/2011_October_2&oldid=1142563004"