Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19, 2006

Template:Webimage

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Template:Webimage[reply]
Delete — Waaaaay too vague, the tag seems to claim that anything is fair use. And if it were rewritten it would be redundant with {{fairuse}} or {{web-screenshot}}. Only used on two pages, so no big deal cleaning up. JYolkowski // talk 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, provides no information for users.--nixie 03:22, 23 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Metro meta-templates

Basically, these were designed as nested meta-templates intricately calling one another. The colour templates hold only a color specification, which was used together with the /Line template to produce colored links. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues "Color coding of information should not be done". To assist those readers that might have vision problems, I've replaced the whole scheme with simple bolded wikilinks. The /Navigation template was used to call rows of data in a footer template, but that step is not necessary as they can be called directly. -- Netoholic @ 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of time went into it, but...delete. Kafziel 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while WP:AUM is no longer policy, the MoS considerations are. And even if coloring were allowed, there are easier ways to achieve this than via meta-templates. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:10, 22 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ha-list

Template:Ha-list
Delete — Content is This page is a list, flagged as part of the Half-decent Articles review process. Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill. ^Blank ^Verse 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did anyone notice that the "half-decent articles" link actually goes to "Wikipedia:harassment"? Kafziel 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any point to this. No normal pages link to it, and the author has left no explanation for it. The curly braces don't look good on it either. -Xol 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:08, 23 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Also note that it is far from being replaced; perhaps Phil Boswell is victim to the apparently-fixed WLH problems. -Splash^talk 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference simple

Delete. Unneeded fork of template:Web reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone wishes to keep to this transparent and maintainable form, rather than entrust their notes to the code of {{Web reference}}, why not? It's probably slightly less server work than {{Web reference}} Septentrionalis 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really needed, and not really used, and parameters in web-reference template are optional anyway. Neonumbers 04:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: functionality subsumed in {{Web reference}} with which I have replaced it. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUM and template:Web reference sure uses meta-templates. --Salix alba (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 4

Delete. unneeded fork of template:Web reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Septentrionalis 16:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: orphaned and unnecessary. —Phil | Talk 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was created as a necessary alternative for some purposes. And two articles currently use it. Deleting this would be deletionism gone off the cliff. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:44, 8 February 2006 (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 page.

Template:Book reference no ISBN

Template:Book reference no ISBN
Delete. Not used. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: an argument could be made for converting it into a REDIRECT to {{Book reference}} to allow easier searching for books without ISBNs. I'm feeling wishywashy even though template redirects are evil. —Phil | Talk 08:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says template redirects are evil? dbenbenn | talk 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think redirects do have drawbacks. They make maintenance harder. If we have a couple of aliases of the same thing it is harder to migrate template calls. Also TfD's of templates with aliases are harder to orphan. I might even be tempted to say that redirects for templates would be best turned off in MediaWiki, but I don't know if this might be viable. For articles, we need redirects. But not for templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should be a way to search for templates that don't use a particular attribute, even if it's not pretty at the moment. ··gracefool |☺ 04:23, 7 February 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaba analogs

Template:Gaba analogs
Delete — Obsolete was replaced with Template:GABA analogs Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:06, 19 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bloodsports

Template:Template:Bloodsports

Delete — Modern use of term pejorative, not NPOV. Concept covered under Category "Blood_sports". Rorybowman 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP AND EXPAND - Each article included in this template clearly fits the definition of a Bloodsport. Templates are commonly used in Wikipedia to aid people to find further information. This template resides at the bottom of the articles and enhances the them. In addition, I have noticed Rorybowman ranting a lot on various article Discussion pages about NPOV and other issues. Perhaps, if he focuses on writing articles, rather than complaining about articles, he would make a stronger contribution to the Wiki. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. Kafziel 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems accurate to me. - Hayter 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The POV aspects escape me. - Cuivienen 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't seem POV to me but the inclusion of sport fishing is (eeek, is that a meta-POV?) I have restored the tfd notice, which was removed by User:SirIsaacBrock. -- AJR | Talk 16:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wouldn't this be better off as a category? I have similar concerns about sport fishing, and the inclusion/exclusion arguments are better made on the article pages vis the Categorization, rather than hidden in a template. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the template title is pejorative and is certainly a candidate for being considered non-NPOV, the template itself is useful in an encyclopaeidic sense and there is no alternative title that can be used that would be meaningfully understood. Accordingly the template should stay, in my opinion. --Hux 12:12, 28 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not going to move the other one, since that'll just result in a bunch of redirects. -Splash^talk 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wwdb

Template:Wwdb
Delete — Another template (Template:Wwdb_name) already does the same job, and the latter is categorized as well as being used. Jeekc 11:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Jeekc 11:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on this, but wouldn't it be simpler to move the Wwdb_name template here, instead of the needlessly longer version? -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:12, 26 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This clearly needs to be worked out elsewhere. -Splash^talk 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiktionarypar

I recently made a change to Template:Wiktionary such that Wiktionarypar is now obsolete. The new Wiktionary template works in three modes, documented on that page. The 1st mode (no params) uses the PAGENAME and searches Wiktionary. The 2nd mode uses a parameter to define a direct link, and the 3rd mode adds a parameter for a display name for that direct link. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not obsolete. Indeed, quite the opposite. Over the past few months, I've been gradually replacing {{wiktionary}} with {{wiktionarypar}}, as per the consensus of several editors reached on Template talk:Wiktionary and the Village Pump back in July 2005. Please read that discussion for the background. Ironically, it is {{wiktionary}}, not {{wiktionarypar}}, that is obsolete. (The bells and whistles added to Template:Wiktionary in recent months are not reasons to use it.) Keep. Uncle G 08:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Wiktionary is the original template, has a lot of historically important info on the talk (wiktionarypar has nothing), and a more natural name for the function. It should certainly stay, and now has the functions necessary to replace wiktionarypar. I can run a bot to replace the wiktionarypar calls, so that's nothing to be concerned about. -- Netoholic @ 08:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talk pages can be renamed and retained. The comparative ages of the templates is irrelevant. The "natural name" for an interwiki tag that takes parameters is in fact one ending in "-par", since that is what the suffix means. The functions that you've added to {{wiktionary}} have made it worse, not better. You've been fiddling with a template that consensus was to stop using, haven't improved it one iota, and are now trying to have deleted the template that consensus was to switch to. Uncle G 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep overzealous deletion of demonstrably useful templates. Find summut better to do. — Dunc|☺ 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need to keep template forks that can perform the exact same function? -- Netoholic @ 09:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template:wiktionary is pathetically inefficient. --Connel MacKenzie 10:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop)[reply]
Delete, but modify Template:Wiktionary to not use {{PAGENAME}}, as that will only lead people to non-existant pages (in 95% of the cases). Jon Harald Søby 11:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It uses PAGENAME but doesn't link directly to "PAGENAME". It runs through Wiktionary's search, and works quite well. I've added a note to the Usage, advising people to check the link before committing. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The search link is just a kludge. There is no actual need for a template that invokes a search, and doing so is a wholly unnecessary burden on the servers. Uncle G 08:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words: Modify {{wiktionary}} to be identical to {{wiktionarypar}} as it currently stands, do all of the work of undoing all of the work that has already been done over the past months to migrate to {{wiktionarypar}}, and get rid of {{wiktionarypar}}. That's the exceedingly long way around. The short way around is to complete the migration to {{wiktionarypar}} that has been progressing for the past few months, and delete {{wiktionary}} (if you are really determined to delete something). Uncle G 08:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to have missed the point that the template has been changed to do the same thing wiktionarypar does. Having that one template makes things much simpler, so as long as a bot is run to remove all occurences of wiktionarypar before it is deleted, then I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I've wondered why it hasn't been done. Delete after all occurences are replaced. Neonumbers 04:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is you who are missing the point. The template does the same thing that {{wiktionarypar}} does (but less efficiently and using complex template code to do it — where in comparison {{wiktionarypar}} has no such complexities), but was only changed to that after several editors had independently decided to move everything to {{wiktionarypar}}, and several months' work of moving to {{wiktionarypar}} had already been done. At the point that this discussion started, there were fewer than 500 uses of {{wiktionary}} left to convert, down from several thousand. The template that you should be looking to delete after moving everything to one template is {{wiktionary}}. Uncle G 08:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just what would have been so difficult about converting {{wiktionary}} to use the proposed code in {{wiktionarypar}}? You're needlessly introducing complexity into the system with this name change. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:11, 1 February 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Baduser

Clutter; not useful. — Dan | talk 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, used to compile info for systematic vandals. R adiant _>|< 09:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In use on Vandalism in Progress.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to Infobox Vandal as "Baduser" sounds a little too indirect. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:34, Jan. 20, 2006
Keep Useful in the contexts where I've seen it. TH 09:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to {{Infobox Vandal}}. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to {{Infobox Vandal}} per Freakofnurture and Titoxd. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Infobox Vandal per Freakofnurture.Clarinetplayer 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Freakofnurture. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to {{Infobox Vandal}} per all above. -Xol 01:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is used. Those pages that use this template are both useful tools for benevolent vandalism fighting users and records of Wikipedia folklore a lot of people will tell stories about later. Caesarion 11:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to {{Infobox Vandal}} per all above. —Phil | Talk 12:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speeddy Keep The vote for deletion mite be a test.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 20:54, 31 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy userfy with the user's permission. Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benon

Template:Benon Template:Benon
Delete or Userfy — This template has a hardcoded username on it, as such is not useful for anyone else. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a suitible generic template Template:Welcomeip exists already. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this template is now on my userspace, i much prefer mine as it has links to my talk page the npov and the test all in one allwoing me to do vandal ighting with a faster turnaroundBenon 03:14, 19 January 2006 (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 page.

Template:SunfazerLegit

Template:SunfazerLegit
Delete — Doesn't seem like it will be used much (currently used on one page), can't be used by other users -- Colonel Cow 01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there exists {{doppelganger}} for things like this... 68.39.174.238 04:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That or {{SockpuppetProven}} with a note applied by the user, linking to an acknowledgement by the other user. 68.39.174.238 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy fine, but it should be in user's template space. --James S. 07:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A 'Legitimate Sockpuppet' tag is needed? --Sunfazer (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after either userfying or replacing with {{doppelganger}}, depending upon Sunfazer's preference. ^Blank ^Verse 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]