Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19, 2006 edit

Template:Photo 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very controversial template that ought to be reviewed by the larger community before being incoporated into very many pages. Plus, even if it's kept, it ought to be renamed to a more descriptive name. Powers 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it could be useful, but the wording needs to be changed and I agree it needs a better title. Perhsps PhotoWarning. --MECU≈talk 18:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --MECU≈talk 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But rephrase the text and rename the title. Photo is too generic and doesn't accurately describe the template. --NMajdan•talk 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--NMajdan•talk 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. It opens a can of worms about why it might be included on, just to pull out a hypothetical example, feces, but not penis. End result would be slapping that tag on every article with a picture that might possibly offend someone. Not needed in any event since the disclaimers link that displays at the bottom of every page includes a link to a disclaimer about using Wikipedia at your own risk. If the photo in question is appropriate to the article, it will not come as a shock to a user browsing that article. Somebody looking at an article about human feces shouldn't be astounded to find (*gasp*) a picture of (what is represented as) human feces. If an article contains a picture that is inappropriately graphic or shocking, the photo in question should be removed or replaced rather than sticking a "parental guidance"-type tag on it. If the template ends up being kept, it should at least be renamed to something more descriptive. Neil916 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. —Mi ra 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The potential offensiveness of illustrations should be apparent by the article title in most cases, and slapping little content advisory stickers on everything is pointless. It's also mistitled. If an image is just gratuitously offensive with no benefit to article quality, why are we keeping it anyway? --tjstrf 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment there's also immense vandalism potential in this template. It could be applied to numerous pages of political figures, etc. to make a POV statement, and in most cases is utterly useless since by the time you see the template, you will already have seen the image in question. --tjstrf 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "not censored" doesn't mean that we can't warn you. Nothing is stopping you from seeing thre precious offensive article - it's just a warning to those who may not want to. BigDT 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How does this even warn anyone? Unless you're using a really low resolution, you'll see the image at the same time you do the template. Also, I found an instance where this seems to have been mistakenly used as if it were a copyright tag on an image page [1] which suggests that it at the very least needs retitled. --tjstrf 06:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much what's been said above. Especially as I saw this on the Feces article which didn't actually have any offensive pictures. -- Steel 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be used in a NPOV manner without being on every page. So it should be deleted, as I doubt it would be included in MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --SPUI (T - C) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates many of Wikipedia's core policies, including "Wikipedia is not censored" and "There are no disclaimers but the General disclaimers". Aesthetically, this thing is just ugly. We need to minimize the number of intrusive metadata tags used on articles (I don't even like {{current}}), not create even more. --Cyde↔Weys 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but limit its use.

- If an explicit image does not belong in an article, remove it.
- If the image exists where it is obviously relevant to the articles content (the title of the article is warning enough), the template needs not be used.
- If the image is relevant but that is not obvious at first (e.g. the article's title is not part of an average person's vocabulary, etc.), the template should be used.

That is my opinion. --Gray Porpoise 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limited keep - I agree with Gray Porpoise. I came here 'cause I saw the tag on Feces and I really didn't see the point. The image there is right at the top of the page, captioned obviously, and it just clutters. — mæstro ^t/c, 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is just another reincarnation of the rejected WP:TOBY. An image may be objectionable to one, but not objectionable to others; what do you do in those cases? Titoxd^(?!?) 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, Toby at least had the virtue of being cute. =) And a short memory. Powers 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per MiraLuka. Selectively disfavoring content in this manner is contrary to policy and is just going to cause pointless and divisive edit warring. Postdlf 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is offensive? Who decides? This template is impossible to use. See also comment above. Garion96 (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a re-creation of a stupid idea that's been deleted via *fD repeatedly. --Carnildo 07:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons mentioned already. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe this has to be put up at WP:CFD, but see also Category:Articles with possible offensive pictures. Garion96 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put it up for CfD if the template gets deleted. Thanks for pointing it out. Powers 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Tarc 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A decision that any particular image is offensive is not compatible with WP:NPOV. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rick Block and Neil916. east .718 18:56, 22 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:LonghornsQuarterback 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information not needed. A succession box could be used. Information should be contained on the Team by Year pages (ie, 2006 Texas Longhorn football team) or on the main football article. Most QBs from a school are not noteable. Though they may be included in Wikipedia for completeness on the subject of college football, it is unlikely to be used much. MECU≈talk 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by Mecu above. Z4ns4tsu 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can you provide an example of the type of box you are suggesting, please? Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A succession box. The Vince Young article already has three for the various awards.--NMajdan•talk 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also see {{succession box}} {{start box}} and {{end box}}. --MECU≈talk 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given in nom. Neil916 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Speedy Delete, per template creator comment below (G7). Neil916 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm the creator of this template and I agree that the succession box is a good way to go. I agree to deletion of this template. Johntex\^talk 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be speedied then, as requested by creator? (CSD General No. 7) Fredil Yupigo 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and creator's request. --Gray Porpoise 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be speedily delted because the page was created on purpose. It meets most of the criteria, but not all of #7 here. --MECU≈talk 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Must have overlooked that part :) Fredil Yupigo 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it only needs 7 days for a non-speedy deleion and we're just about there. ;) BigDT 03:23, 26 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:LSUTigersFootball 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should use succession box. Will incorrectly lead users to generate more pages about a team than are needed. A short discussion at the {{WikiProject College football}} Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Year_Pages_Template shows this isn't needed. Reccommend for delete, set precedence school by sport by year templates are not needed. MECU≈talk 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 20:43, 19 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:Varol Akman 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate subject for a template, editor has created autobiographical article, vandalized the Philosopher Stub template with the same information, and is now creating a template of his autobiography. Wingsandsword 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, not noteworthy, would be candidate for deletion even as an article. Neil916 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author also created it as an article too: Varol Akman. Probably needs to be AfD'd as vanity too, since he used the exact same text for his user page User:Akman.
Delete. For reasons stated above.--NMajdan•talk 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:08, 22 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:North Alabama Landmarks 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 no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary and useless grouping. It would be impossible to create a complete and final list of such landmarks, which is what this template suggests. Dividing by region is also inappropriate; Category:North Alabama Landmarks was previously deleted to be merged into Category:Landmarks in Alabama and since reposted (see CFD discussion). Postdlf 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Landmarks can be added and removed as needed, so this isn't intended to be a "complete and final" list, the template is useful for someone interested in the region without making it an overwhelmingly large list of links for all of Alabama. Neil916 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My bigger problem with it is the one I expressed in the CFD, linked above—there's no indication that these landmarks are so identified with "North Alabama" that they should be defined by that region rather than Alabama generally. Which is not to say that I'd rather see a state-wide landmark template (we have a category for that anyway), but just that the region's distinctiveness is being overplayed. Postdlf 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with merging the Category:North Alabama Landmarks with Category:Landmarks in Alabama, but I really do not see any reason why we should deleted the Template:North Alabama Landmarks, the Birmingham, USA Landmarks is still in existence, and they both serve the same purpose. The purpose of the North Alabama Landmarks template is to highlight the main landmarks in the region, ones that people are actually interested in. My own house is a North Alabama Landmark, but it's not significant enough for anyone to care, so therefore it isn't on the template. Like Neil916 said, the template was not intended to be a "complete and final" list. I believe I would know, I created it. AlaGuy 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with {{otherarticles}}. We do not need large lists of links at the bottom of all these articles. Septentrionalis 17:31, 23 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:Mapeuc 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 nomination withdrawn --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template for mapcoordinates generates external links to 4 different map sites, all in ~10 zoom levels, generating a line of 40 externals links thereby grossly disturbing any layout. It not used anywhere, except in another unused template. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - Nomination Withdrawn - The template might serve useful purposes, but I still feel it should be used very carefully the way it looks now because it does not fit in the layout of the vast majority of wikipedia articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is now used by an improved version of Public transport connecting to The Hague. It is a compact version of another useful template. It has been designed to fit better in some pages, without disturbing the layout. --Patrick 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see this [2] old version of Railway_stations_in_the_Netherlands, under the letter D to see why this template does disrupt the layout of articles when it is used carelessly. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it should not be used carelessly, that is not an argument for deleting a template.--Patrick 11:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but in the example above it was used carelessly. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the template is no longer used due to the article above been speedy deleted for reposting after AfD. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, it was modified to deal with at least one complaint.--Patrick 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference was a subst of a template, which was not the main reason for deletion and did not change the appearence of the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve and to Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr), Edit disputes don't belong here, this is a bit over the top.

See User:Fabartus/tmp6 where I modified it twice successfully in about ten minutes, such that either approach (the second needs refined) will prevent the problem reported by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Using this model call into User:Fabartus/tmp6:{{mapeuc|52.0813|4.3231|}} you get these (two flavors):
Call format={{mapeuc|52.078|4.342|}}

Trial one
MQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MM 4M 2M 1M 500k 200k 100k 50k 25k 10k 5k
MSNE 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
MSNW 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 sat

Trial two

MQ==http://www.mapquest.com/maps/	MM==http://www.multimap.com/map/	MSNE==http://maps.msn.com/	MSNW==http://maps.msn.com/
MQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	MM 4M 2M 1M 500k 200k 100k 50k 25k 10k 5k	MSNE 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0	MSNW 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 sat

The second can still collide with huge images or tables on the right, but the first will wrap and miss if jammed by such unseemly advances. Being another box structure, even the second should cause less format problems on a page. More to the point, any table format is probably neater if it were developed to be less intrusive. The original output was certainly ugly Patrick! Try embedding 'br' commands here and there! I'd shoot for a 2X2 or 2X3 table with a grid in an attractive color. But the first can hold the fort while you develop something neater. Adding google maps and google world would be good.

If this is truly designed to be general use, it belongs in template space, but with clear usage instructions, and a cleaned up format. However, As a onesie, it should be an article subpage like Railway stations in the Netherlands/Mapeuc and called like the above example. I'm puzzled why both the later two groups connect to MSN.com, which makes no sense at all given the evident superiority of google maps. <g> What's that, oh, WP:NPOV again! <g> Dang, the story of me wife! <G> Good day to all. // FrankB 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is an inline version of Template:mapeu (backlinks edit), intended for a list of locations, each with these links. Abbreviations like MQ and the link labels can be explained once at the top or bottom of the list. After I removed the newline in the TfD message, [3] looks fine in my browser (apart from the TfD message). What is the problem?--Patrick 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway stations in The Hague 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template contains information that should be in the main space, it's not used and has a grossly disturbing layout when it would be used. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have substituted it, but editing the page involved may require resubstitution with other parameters. The layout is fine.--Patrick 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are other, cleaner ways of keeping articles up-to-date. If we would create a template for each topic that might change sometime in the future, everything would be in Template space. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disturbingly incomprehensible collection of external links. --Gray Porpoise 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fugly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep/Hold~~ Delete (Revised vote), per nom and creator having subst'd already. Only the {{mapeuc}} data will need be update if modifications are needed, otherwise, rewrite the article with formatting I suggest here in the article to use the mapeuc template I saved for you above and only my talk so it can be updated if needed where any editor can see it. I see no reason to keep one with such a narrow purpose.
The template incorporates the {{mapeuc}} template several times and I despise bullies and backstabbers and arm chair sea-lawyers that beat up on something and someone without even trying to improve it. Either improvement suggested above does that little thing above, so give Patrick a chance to refine this one too. This page is not supposed to be a political battle ground used by an editor without a conscience to attack the good faith efforts of another, however unskilled or inexperienced. // FrankB 19:29, 26 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:StarCraft Game 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just some arbitrary links to random StarCraft articles. This is inferior in every way to Template:StarCraft and totally unnecessary. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously redundant and incomplete. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and not needed. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. Neil916 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~for Aiur~~. Fredil Yupigo 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 22 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.