Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

November 1 edit

Calvinpedia templates 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 all // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not useful in template space and likely point to hoax articles which, thankfully, are not in article space. Peter O. (Talk) 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User space and Speedy Delete Inappropriate for the template namespace; userspace pages can be included as templates, and that's exactly what should be done with these. Once the template has been userfied, it should be speedily deleted per G6 housekeeping. As it is, someone needs to take Calvin John (talk · contribs) to task for having only "contributed" to his own pages.[1] EVula 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator has been permanently blocked for making death threats, so userfying and taking him to task seems redundant. Thanks. 86.130.197.206 11:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, user has been indefinitely blocked, so no reason for us to act as a web space provider for him. Punkmorten 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the permanent block of the creator. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:19, 8 November 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 all // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BOH-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Bohemia}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, almost a speedy. Also, for next time, two words: "group nomination" :) -- Ned Scott 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I would have used a "group nomination" if I knew how. I was just following the only instructions provided. It had struck me that there ought to be a better way..... Andrwsc 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I guess I just assumed there were instructions for group TfDs like there are for AfDs. -- Ned Scott 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BRA-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Brazil}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CUB-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Cuba}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CYP-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Cyprus}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EGY-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Egypt}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GHA-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Ghana}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HAI-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Haiti}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IRI-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Iran}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IRL-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Ireland}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]

Support this deletion as per nom. Dodge 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PER-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Peru}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC).----[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:URU-Summer-Olympics edit

Navigation box replaced by navigation section within new {{Infobox Olympics Uruguay}}. All replacements in main article space already done. Andrwsc 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 18:25, 7 November 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:Musicawards 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 keep

Del Major and us pov award templetes. Dotuniverce 14:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful nav template, and I can see it becoming huge. Links to other award shows should be done in context, within the article. I fail to see a group of articles about award shows as a series. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a template that just lists the major music awards would be good. -- Alucard_16 19:07, 4 November 2006
Keep Looks useful, and any fears of what should be included (as in too many awards) should be discussed on the template's talk page, but is not of itself a reason for deletion.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the template remains manageable and is reduced in size to the majors only. --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful, although some may object to the Latin Grammys and the CMA awards being listed as "minor." --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks useful. Watley54 18:22, 8 November 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:High-traffic 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 keep // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no longer any reason for using this metadata template. Who cares if an article is linked by Slashdot or Fark or whatever? Years ago this was a big deal. Now it happens daily, as Wikipedia is bigger than those other sites combined. We don't get excited anymore every time anyone links to us, so this template is now useless. In addition, there's a bit of upkeep associated with this template, as no one seems to be clearing out old uses. I just went through and deleted one use way back from August. Really, who cares now that some article was linked back in August? Without proper trimming it seems inevitable that every article would eventually get one of these detailing the first time we caught it being mentioned in some outside source ... and that's just useless. I say that Wikipedia has grown large enough that it's time to get rid of metadata like, "OMG, another site linked to us!". --Cyde Weys 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this template survived a previous TfD debate. I voted to delete it then, and I'd still like to delete it now. I feel that it's fairly useless at best and harmful at worst (as it provides a convenient means for vandals to track some of the articles receiving the most attention). It also assumes bad faith on the part of readers who happen visit Wikipedia by following an outside link. (The assumption is that they're likely to commit vandalism, so we need to warn other users to be on the lookout.) —David Levy 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous debate; it may not be encyclopedic but it is useful as a vandalism warning. --SunStar Net 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's not useful as a vandalism warning. The only possible way I could see this being useful was if you religiously checked "What links here" (and who does that?), but that's made useless because nobody culls the use of this template, so you'll get lots of hits on pages that were linked to months ago and no longer have any sort of vandalism potential. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not particularly useful, and most of these sites are not comparable with Wikipedia's Main Page in traffic anyway. Kusma (討論) 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A template like this can alert users and prevent subtle vandalism over a particular article, but this template should only be used when the articles have been linked recently. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still useful for short periods after the article -- Palfrey 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? Especially considering that being linked from the front page results in more traffic than these "high traffic" links from external sites? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it should be used only for articles linked during the time those articles are on the front page of another high-traffic site. A site linked from Slashdot or Fark will get a thousand times more traffic than it otherwise normally would, implying that the article should be carefully watched--people will often vandalize the article to try to hit all the incoming users. However, this template should not be kept on the talk page permanently, rather it should be a temporary template, per Cyde's reasoning. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep but change the use so it's only used temporarily (to reduce the clutter, and because there's no need to keep it as some historical point, which could be done in the text of the talk page if needed.) This could be very helpful for some articles who are somewhat sleepers and don't get much activity. -- Ned Scott 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe creating a userbox-size version would help the cluttering but definitely keep. Lincher 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that, people here might be interested in reading about the proposal at Wikipedia:Mini Talkpage Template. -- Ned Scott 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simply knowing that something is linked to by a high trafic web site can go a long way in trying to understand a series of edits by new users --T-rex 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how it would be useful for someone to realize why they suddenly see dozens of random IP edits on an out-of-the-way article, but I don't see how it would be helpful for actually stopping vandalism (it is vandalism to be reverted regardless of whether it was linked from some website), and this is indeed no longer an unusual occurrence. Wikipedia is huge and popular; for that reason, the template is simply not going to be added to the most of the linked articles, and someone ultimately has to clean up the 10% that must still be hundreds that are added. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a great template to explain why an article like Knuckles the Echidna has just become the biggest vandal magnet since George W. Bush. It's generally removed after a few days anyway, and it makes a good way to justify semi-protection. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vandalism is vandalism regardless of how popular the page is. Kavadi carrier 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kavadi carrier and nom. --Bob 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In some cases this could be quite relevant information expecially concerning votes for deletion as a rush of people from a related website most likely could affect the discussion --Einsidler 08:24, 8 November 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:Vandalbot 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 Redirected (consensus reached). —[admin] Pathoschild 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This unused template (and the attached category) is redundant with {{indefblockeduser}}, which provides a convenient link to the block log. It will probably be misused to categorise IP addresses (which should be tagged with {{indefblockedIP}}), or vandals who happen to have tabbed browsers and a disinclination towards giving administrators all the time in the world to stop them. It should be redirected to the generic block template, as was done between October 7 (when I redirected it) and 31 (when SunStar Net restored it). —[admin] Pathoschild 03:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is useful for listing potential or used vandalbots, shouldn't be used on IPs. --SunStar Net 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, do not sort vandals by type per WP:DENY and no reason to sort them anyway. Kusma (討論) 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:DENY should not apply to vandalbots, as they are not 'users' as such, unlike vandals/trolls. They should be seen outside of WP:DENY. Could be categorised as [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia vandalbots/x month]] etc. --SunStar Net 14:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what would such a categorisation be good for? We block those who harm the encyclopedia, but why should we display the blocke dusers like a butterfly collection? Kusma (討論) 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalbots are not 'proper' users - we categorise bots under Wikipedia bots. --SunStar Net 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should anyone care by which method a particular indefinitely blocked username has been vandalizing? I don't think we need Category:Vandals who use tabbed browsing or Category:Vandals who use Linux or Category:Vandals who are 1337 script kiddies - all such a classification does is give these people a reason to have a userpage with the category or template on, and they don't need a userpage per WP:DENY. Kusma (討論) 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As such, I don't oppose WP:DENY, but too many categories may be a bad thing. The method itself isn't important. I suppose I will have to go along with the consensus on this one. My mistake reverting it. --SunStar Net 15:03, 1 November 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.