Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14, 2006 edit

Template:Infobox parkway 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. – Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per creator TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs), no longer needed (see template talk page). Functionality was incorporated into {{Infobox road}}. Powers 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not eligible for CSD under G7 because it was not mistakenly created. Powers 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... verified duplication of {{Infobox road}}. --Ssbohio 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. {{Infobox road}} is a lovely thing. -- NORTH ^talk 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly redundant.--Runcorn 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author request. Neil916 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MainBold 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{catmore}}, which is much more clearly labelled as a category template by its very formulation. Circeus 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Ahem, Catmore gives a single link, this takes six not one, and emphasizes them in bold. Primary current use is on category pages (p/o WPP:Books and daughter projects WPP:Novels and WPP:series) to minimize verticle space and identify cognizant wikiProject(s).

1. On 'avoiding Parochialism' It's also being used (i.e. the 'general use' 'as planned' in conception) in the nascent interwiki category equalization effort ('WikiProject Interwiki category equalization'), where it's flexibility will allow linking to multiple main articles (usually found in history, the USA, British Empire and India have many sub-articles split out for some examples) on a (Meta defined) category page that appears here, or perhaps some selected daughter (sub-)category pages ... to annote the depth and breadth, if you will, of the overall articles. Such uses will probably also use {{cat see also}} to interlink across the siblings of a parent so the editor (or reader) can navigate easily across the tree branches to better select a 'better choice' for their purpose at the time.

2. It is as useful on the commons as an interwiki link, and again to a diversely spread set of usually historical articles. As such it was properly tagged with {{Commonstmp}}, which was itself nominated for Tfd, and survived handily. Unlike: {{main}} it doesn't choke on a sixth argument (perameter) and it may be extended depending on the image listing needs. (The use of {{main}} itself in a 'commons translated version' is proscribed by a multiligual box template having prior claim.)

3. I should hasten to note that such templates operate the same on en.wp and the commons from the 'POV of the display outcome' or 'ouput'; it is extremely vexing to have to reformat text annotating categories or links within such notes and desirable to edit such so the same thing can be shared on both wikis when cross-linking categories and 'equalizing' notations and verifying the category tree. The more links used, the worse the edit problems are without such a system, and this is part of such a set of complimentary templates producing the same outcome. Others (so far) are {{cat see also}}, {{w2}} and {{W2c}} and all together are very useful to mimimizing mistakes and equalizing the presentation of the newly linked sister project categorys. As a result, the commons template version also 'processes' the link into an interwiki link ''[[w: XWYZ | XWYZ]]'' which is further interpreted (by the server like the prefix 'commons:') into the language project space of the users server so crosslinking the commons categories to most all the language wikipedias, or will do so when they catch up. On the various language wikipedias, like this one, the complimentary and correctly formulated template has to exist for the server to process. So messing with these is affecting a project with a lot of scope and indirectly a lot of wikis, not just this one, 'en.wp', the first and largest, but only one in a family.

4. For some use Examples—See: Category:Alternate history timelines or Category:Fantasy to examin the difference in application from 'catmore'. Fantasy, uses both {{catmore}} and {{MainBold}}, so eqivilency is NOT demonstrated in actual use. Not your best work Circeus (I sincerely hope <g>)! if something is redundant, it must be used the same way and function similarly. This has a very different output. I could go for a 'better name', and even different 'lead-in text' before the list, but it's name now relates mnemonically well as 'main' is similar. The use is different from 'main' as the usage warningly delineates with a prominent caveat—without which the various WP:MOS-nazis <g>, myself included, would have a fit if someone used in in article space! <g> // FrankB 08:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not takemuch to add extra links to {{catmore}}. This template is, at best, a fork, and one with no excuse besides the multiple links, but which creates inconsistency with the widely used {{catmore}}. Circeus 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do that much, and you'll have a more valid arguement. In case you hadn't noticed, it's locked. But what pray tell does 'more' relate to or mean? I grasp what a 'main article' is, but what is a 'more article'? In either case, one or both should be added to the usage notes in {{main}} for the sake of new editors. I suspect that request is what drew your fire. Well, not all of us have the intimate knowledge of your experience to know minutia like what more means in catmore. We just muddle through and do the best we can. // FrankB 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see that it has its uses.--Runcorn 22:03, 25 July 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:User joyride 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 irrelevant. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Joyriding is car theft. Should this be encouraged on WP??. Jack 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Joyriding is not car theft, at least, not in any English usage I know of. Google define:joyride for example. It seems pretty innocuous to me! The second definition is actually from Wikipedia... But look at the one from Princeton. As per Ssbohio below, I believe that deleting an entry because it offends some people is a dangerous precedent. The term refers to an illegal activity in the UK yes, but a harmless one in the USA. (Riding in one's own car for fun.) If we delete this we would have to delete many other user boxes. --circuitloss 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace per WP:GUS. I would be willing to accept it at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User joyride. —Mi ra 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. Charon X/talk 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Joyriding is an offence in law. It involves the theft of a car and its illegal usage in a manner that endangers other drivers. Frankly templates like should face instant deletion. In many parts of the world, this template has only one meaning: the user breaks the law. It is grossly offensive, particularly as in Britain and Ireland joyriders cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent road users and police officers every year. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep with a complete metaphysical certitude — Joyride has more than one meaning. Deleting it because one meaning is illegal sets a bad precedent for content dealing with other acts illegal or offensive in some parts of the world. For example, fanny pack is inoffensive American English, but can be seen as very offensive UK English. Deleting on these grounds would set the precedent for other contentious topics banned in parts of the world, like abortion and sodomy. As far as the German solution is concerned, that solution — and I have issues with its even being called a solution — has not achieved consensus, and is defeinitely not policy. We're getting into the circular reasoning of: "These userboxes should be deleted per GUS; GUS should be adopted because userbox templates are already being moved & deleted under it." For all these reasons & more, keep. --Ssbohio 14:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above mentioned silly basis for deletion, and possibly move, if truly neccessary. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Userbox doesn't advocate anything nor should it offend anybody. Neil916 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace. See Joyride (crime). If the article is POV, then someone should fix that too. Rfrisbie^talk 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in British English, joy-ride can mean a pleasure-drive, though it usually doesn't. The reference to hot cars (hot can mean stolen) suggests that criminal activity is intended. Runcorn 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. In the context the meaning read in to the template uses a term usually understood in much of the world to be mean committing a criminal offence, with a reference to hot cars which is widely understood to mean stolen cars. Wikipedia cannot keep a template that in the commonly understood meaning of the terms, used together, unambiguously means someone stating that they commit a criminal offence that results in a jail term. Irrespective of the results here it will be deleted by admins because it advocates a criminal act and Wikipedia cannot do that that. There is some justification for keeping some templates. But ones open at a very minimum to the interpretation that they are advocating, promoting or admitting the breaking of the criminal law are automatic candidates for speedy deletion. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Difficult to disagree, though WP:AGF I don't criticise anyone who has used it.--Runcorn 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]}
Information: This template has now been speedily deleted by an admin under the WP rule regarding a template judged "blatantly inflammatory and highly likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute". As mentioned earlier, such templates as are judged likely to bring WP into dispute (and one advocating a criminal act qualifies under the definition) are candidates for instant liquidation. They also have their page locked to prevent recreation. That has also been done. Untimately, where an article, template or other such item is seen as blatantly inflammatory and highly likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, the outcomes of votes don't matter. They are deleted and locked automatically. The only surprising thing is that this template lasted so long on WP without being deleted-on-sight, the normal response to the creation of templates like this. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 22:03, 25 July 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:Mario/Yoshi/Wario/Donkey Kong series 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. – Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once populated, this template would be too large. Already covered by {{Mario series}}, {{Wario series}}, {{Yoshi series}}, and {{Donkey Kong series}}. Delete. Pagra shtak 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Pagrashtak. - Liontamer 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--M @r ē ino 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's redundant Cosmos 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Modify, it should be on the Super Mario series page or something, and then have an independent templet that's just the Mario games( specificly/soley Mario) along with a link to the series page. It's just huge and gives you a large surplus of links right now.--Blinkstale 21:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Thorpe | talk 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cumbersome and duplicates other templates.--Runcorn 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RAF Tornado variants 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. – Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles merged into Panavia Tornado, no longer needed. Denniss 00:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the links in the template point to the same article. Neil916 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer in use (nothing links there)--Runcorn 20:05, 25 July 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.