Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21 edit

Template:AF Character 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already have one that produces the exact same thing. Except that the alternate, is more accepted.. Dreamy 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Agree with dreamy. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to delete it. When I created it, there was not a standard that was being used. I am a member of Wikiproject:Artemis Fowl and there was a request for a standard, and I made one. If there is a more accepted one, then use that one. Jhfireboy 13:10, 22 June 2007 (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:Ban 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used warning template, seems to serve the same purpose as {{uw-vandalism3}}. ≈ Mystytopia 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to the reasons the nominator gave, the name is a bit misleading. Gracenotes^T § 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Gracenotes. JoshuaZ 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused/redundant/mind-boggling name. –Pomte 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Gracenotes' reasoning. Non-standard warning template. CloudNine 17:08, 26 June 2007 (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:2006afceast 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion, unused. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique; has been embedded into appropriate articles instead (2006 New England Patriots season, 2006 New York Jets season). — Pats1 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wise to have to update 4 separate articles after each game instead of just this one template? –Pomte 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2006 season is over. Neier 02:18, 25 June 2007 (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:s-suc 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 06:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not satisfy its purpose, which is to inform a user of an order of succession. Instead, it repeats the information that could already be found in the center box of the succession box. Futhermore, it was used by only one individual and that individual's page has now been changed to the proper format. I request immediate deletion of this template.
–Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions ) 05:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lines of successions only list royals, and the title of "heir to the throne" is a royal title anyway. These succession boxes' best place is thus under the header "Royalty" (Template:S-roy). Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 16:38, 24 June 2007 (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:CopyrightAlliance 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the WP:CLS guidelines, I do not see the point of this navigation template. As the guidelines say, "Alphabetical order is not preferable", which clearly this navigation template does. Also, most of the articles listed on this template do not even mention anything about being Copyright Alliance members (other than this template), so it currently fails the "Is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in the series?" test. Finally, I highly doubt it is useful; I do not think a majority of readers would even consider reading every article whose subject is a "Copyright Alliance member". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as on Microsoft there are too many tables already and this is way too minor for that, and probably 90% of the other articles mentioned in it. RN 10:57, 24 June 2007 (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:Gmail 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 06:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly small; one of the links is even an anchor within the main page. — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too small to serve as a functional navigation template; redundant to properly written articles. --Haemo 08:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in cases like this, a See Also section might also work. Gracenotes^T § 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Need a lot more links than this to be justified. Remy B 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too few links for navigational value. –Pomte 16:39, 24 June 2007 (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:History of Northeast China 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been created by User:Wiki pokemon as a POV fork of template:History of Manchuria to circumvent the naming dispute on template:History of Manchuria. This POV fork should be deleted. Cydevil38 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is absolutely nothing POV about Northeast China. This term is used by the people of Northeast China to refer to themselves as "Northeasterners" or "Northeastern Chinese." This was the only official term ever used in Chinese historiography to refer to the region. Assault11 06:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral : Northeast China is the association of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang all of them were created offcially at the dawn of the 20th century, i suggest to start that template from the 20th century only up to now if a party support its existence. Otherwise, if parties haven't found a compromise then i would not be against a deletion.Whlee 11:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not deny the existence of Northeast China and its history on one condition, it need to be considered as a political-socio-economical Chinese macro-region created by the PRC (written on its talk page).Whlee 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. template:History of Manchuria and Template:History of Northeast China are totally different. template:History of Manchuria presents the history of Manchuria(today NE China) which existed between 1635 to 1945. Template:History of Northeast China presents the entire history of NE China from ancient time when the region is already part of China to present day.Wiki Pokemon 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely different eh? When I look at the templates, they appear to be almost exact duplicates of each other (minus the heading title). How can they be different, if they link to the same information? I think there might be 2 different articles linked on that entire list. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unaware of POV fork rule, I now admit I have violated that rule. I will leave the decision to delete Template:History_of_Northeast_China to the majority. For BIGNOLE check this History of Manchuria.Wiki Pokemon 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per Cydevil38. There has been absolutely no consensus among other editors and this is only a POV-based attempt. Regarding the discussion, you have not given any good reason to make the edits you wished to do. Wait for more comments from the other editors instead of simply believing that you can do whatever you want because a few other editors support you. Good friend100 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Cydevil38 and Good friend100, this template is a POV fork of the History of Manchuria template, and appears to be exactly the same, except in chronological order. This template should be deleted as extraneous. Parsecboy 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be an extension of the naming dispute at Template:History of Manchuria. I recommend rescoping both templates, so that the "History of Manchuria" template refers only to history during which it was called "Manchuria", and the "History of Northeast China" template refers only to the areas that are currently classified as Northeast China. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that (as pointed by proponents of "Northeast China" in this naming dispute, and is a valid point) the region wasn't known as "Manchuria" for much longer of a period than the period that (a major portion of) it was/is known as "Northeast China." It didn't really have a "regional name" per se for millenia, so the divisional idea doesn't really work. --Nlu (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{History of Manchuria}} The templates look very similar, so they should be merged. Alternatively, you can go with GT's suggestion, but a merge seems like a better idea. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do agree with Wiki Pokemon's assertion that the two templates can be used for different purposes, but I don't see that happening in actual practice, so I also agree that this is a POV fork. There's a difference of opinion on the template talk page about terminology (Manchuria vs Northeast China); "Manchuria" is English terminology that is appropriate for the English Wikipedia, although I have no strong objection to "Northeast China" either. Bottom line, we don't need both templates. -Amatulic 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To avoid anachronistic presentations, this template should be changed to include events occurred between year 1945 and present, with lots of details to fill in, such as the Chinese civil war and present-day politics. Similarly, Template:History of Manchuria should be changed to include events occurred between 17th century and year 1945 (otherwise, it is anachronistic). Another Template:History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east (here is a proposed draft to show the relation amongst these entangled histories) is qualified to hold the enumerated all-time events.--Jiejunkong 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of providing some historical facts, in my opinion, "History of Northeastern China" only includes the history from 1945 to present time, because the region was mainly called "Guan Dong" (關東，East of Shanhai Guan) in Chinese language, not "Dong Bei" (東北，Northeastern China). The name "Dong Bei" (Northeastern China) became popular after 1945. In 1945, Japanese Guandong Army was defeated and World War II ended. Before 1945, "Guan Dong" (East of Shanhai Guan) and "Manchuria" were popular terms to call the region and they were synonyms. But after 1945, both "Manchuria" and "Guan Dong" became quite offensive, so they are replaced by "Dong Bei" (Northeastern China).--Jiejunkong 05:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Offensive to you, perhaps. It's certainly not considered offensive to the ethnic Man among the ones that I've seen in Taiwan and in the United States. The thing is, again, whether offensive or not, the change should be determined by consensus, and there isn't one right now. The use of the term "Northeast China" is problematic historically and geographically. --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Naus claimed he is partially Manchu and the term "Manchuria" is offensive to him. In contrast, the ethnic Manchu people you've met may have some unusual background, e.g., left the region 60 years ago (as you said they are in Taiwan and United States, so it is likely they left the region in 1948 when Republic of China's army was driven out of the region). This is very different from local residents, who are given the information about State of Manchuria, e.g.,Unit 731, General Shiro Ishii (in particular after Seiichi Morimura published his discovery in 1980s). In a nutshell, if the term is not offensive to you, it doesn't mean the term is not offensive when the term is offensive to other users, in particular those users who were local residents of the place being discussed here.--Jiejunkong 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork created for the purpose of evading the need to lead to a consensus. If eventually there is a consensus to move, then that's fine, but right now there isn't, and there shouldn't be an attempt to evade the attempt to have a consensus (or to circumvent one). --Nlu (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, blatantly. Awful. --Dscarth 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest. Rename the Template:History of Manchuria to Northeast Asia. That keeps everybody happy. (BTW, the name of Manchuria comes from Chinese administrative region Man Chu (滿州) during Ming dynasty. Chu is probably transcription old Mandarin language during Ming dynasty and Chu (州, Chau, Zhou) is a Chinese suffix that means administrative region.) — HenryLi (Talk) 17:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I sympathise with the reasons for creating this template, it is clearly a POV fork and therefore I agree it must be deleted. While it is theoretically possible that different uses could be found for this template and Template:History of Manchuria, there would always be much crossover between them, and it would be better to have one template. The underlying issue here - what that template should be called - remains unresolved (personally, I would be fine with this name), but the general consensus seems to be that there should be only one template, not two. 194.74.208.129 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (This comment was by me. I hadn't realised I wasn't signed in. Terraxos 01:52, 26 June 2007 (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.