Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10 edit

Template:USERNAME 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for discussion, tentative deletion--some kind of Java script, mis-catted, used as example given below on some user pages.
Some kind of typing-aid?
If so, needs re-catted if kept to Typing-aid templates
List of uses: User:NathanB (transclusion) User:Elmo12456 (transclusion) User:Shabbs (transclusion) User:Pengo/testq (transclusion) User:DeadGuy (transclusion) ~~User:Willscrlt/more userboxes (transclusion)~~
Example use: [[Category:Wikipedians in Missouri|{{USERNAME}}]]
I don't know Java, and can't estimate it 's effect. Such does need a clear documentation and proper categorization if kept. If others find it useful, my vote is neutral// FrankB 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it is useful from separating actual articles from opinion pages. --DeadGuy 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncyclopedia is set up differently; here, it simply will not work. Javascript can't be templated like this. -Amarkov moo! 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and as for what it does, it produces your username. On Uncyclopedia, it is used to call uncyclopedia:You an idiot, using a name. -Amarkov moo! 22:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind it being deleted. Even if it did work correctly (it doesn't seem to for me), it would not solve the problem I was trying to solve, namely it does not allow a transclusion from a subpage of the current user. The example usage given above is broken, and should use {{PAGENAME}} (which gives the username of the user whose page it appears on). By the way, real world usage example on uncyclopedia is to add the current user to a list of "People Michael Jackson Has Been Scientifically Proven To Be Better Than". —Pengo 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it cannot work correctly on Wikipedia without the javascript being added to a Wikipedia's own stylesheets (which is unlikely). The javascript seen on the template is not even accessible to the template. —Pengo 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Fooled me for a minute there - I thought you were talking about {{Username}}. Yeah, I can't see much use for USERNAME and it doesn't seem to work, so either fix or Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This functionality should be implemented directly by the MediaWiki software, not through Javascript. When I used it on my user page, I didn't know it used Javascript -- I assumed it was a variable like {{PAGENAME}}, which is what I am using now. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: It's not implemented by MediaWiki because of perceived performance issues (i.e. the page would become uncacheable). Bugzilla has it marked as "wontfix" —Pengo 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and not relevant to wikipedia at all.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have means of stripping the namespace from a page title, all template uses of this can be replaced, and user pages can be updated carefully. Chris cheese whine 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't want wikienemies. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The example given at the top of this TfD is broken, and I find it hard to imagine any non-broken uses as long as the code to do this isn't site-wide JS. (The way it's written at the moment, it will display the logged-in user's username, as long as they have the relevant JavaScript and as long as the name isn't used as the argument to anything else; for instance, using it as a cat sortkey won't work, and [[User talk:{{USERNAME}}]] won't work (the software offers a working workaround for this in Special:Mytalk). I can only think of one possible use for a corrected version as well, which is to place the actual IP rather than a link to it on MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, and in my opinion that isn't a big enough reason to mess around with the site-wide JS to get the template slightly working. (By the way, there are good technical reasons why it can't be fixed to act as a template parameter or category sortkey). --ais523 17:26, 12 February 2007 (U T C)
Delete; if it did work here, believe me, it would very, very quickly give Uncyclopedia a rottten name for Wikipedia. See this conversation for ways in which Uncyclopedians themselves have been debated the issue even within the confines of an all-humor site. —Lenoxus 07:51, 15 February 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 page.

Template:WalesinUK 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Template:UKFormation, with one link removed. Pointless. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be left alone until dispute with regard to Template:UKFormation is resolved. siarach 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A good template about law and restrictions.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a good template....but it is the same template as Template:UKFormation (minus one link).... that was my point. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Tellyaddict Kamope · talk · contributions 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, have you read anything in the nomination or the above comments? Chris cheese whine 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork designed to give primacy to Wales over the UK. But the UK is a sovereign state while Wales is not, so the UK should have primacy. If we don't give primacy to sovereign states we will start a free for all by all the nationalists and irredentists in the world. CalJW 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above vote and comment qualifying it is not aware of the reason the fork was created (far from being POV, although arguably in reaction to POV) - and indeed indirectly justifies its creation and the argument against the inclusion of Wales in the main Template:UKFormation template which resulted in the creation of Template:WalesinUK . The prime template, Template:UKFormation, currently includes Wales although at the time of the creation of the fork it did no as Wales had no part in forming the UK. The fork in question was created to provide a history of how Wales came to be a part of the UK (via England) as it would (rightly) be completely absent from any template/history of how the UK came to be. POV does not come into it with regard to the template which is the target of this vote and i repeat my initial statement that this should not be put forward for deletion until the dispute which gave rise to it at Template:UKFormation is resolved - which has yet to happen. siarach 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this vote and nomination are entirely unjustified until resolution of dispute at Template:UKFormation. siarach 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - patent POV fork. Chris cheese whine 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV? - Quite simply untrue as anyone who has taken the time to consider the situation which gave rise to the template realises. siarach 20:29, 15 February 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 page.

Template:S60C 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adds "Studio 60 Character [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|25px]]" to the header of an article where FA stars etc. frequently go. The fact that the subject of the article is a Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip character should be explained within the page, not in the page title. Also see {{page subtitle}}, which is still objectionable to me but less egregiously so. æ ² ✆ 2007‑02‑10t16:26z

Delete. Featured article and spoken word icons go in the corner in articles, and nothing else. Chris cheese whine 16:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It adds to the article, doesn't seem to hurt anything, I don't see any reason to delete this other than fuddy-duddy-ism. Just H 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stuff up there is semi-officially endorsed by Wikipedia, and gives META information. This is neither, and is not even a free image. Belongs in an infobox, if anywhere. —Pengo 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not releavant and even if kept it would need some very minor editing to clean it up.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Chris --Allstar86 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice touch, adds to the article. Gan fon 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles should stick to the article area of the page. On a side note, this TfD is putting the articles that use it into Category:Templates for deletion, and I can't seem to get it to stop athough the articles do not show the category at the bottom. Does the absolute text placement disrupt noinclude? Gimmetrow 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should go in the infobox (which looks great, btw) --FeldBum 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, encouragement to improper treatment of fictional material. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:24, 15 February 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 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 delete contained only link spam. Kimchi.sg 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daily Corinthian edit

Template containing one extrernal link, made by a user whos only other activity at this time has been making a vanity self-bio, now deleted. The template is not used anywhere, and I fail to see its usefulness. Egil 09:10, 10 February 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 page.

Template:Office of the Alcorn School District Superintendent, and Office of the Alcorn Central High School Counselor 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 speedy delete contained only link spam. Kimchi.sg 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template containing one extrernal link, made by a user whos only other activity at this time has been making a vanity self-bio, now deleted. The template is not used anywhere, and I fail to see its usefulness. Egil 09:10, 10 February 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 page.

Template:TEA district rating:AA 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion This is a template with 7 links - 6 of which link to the same article (different grades of a classification system) and the other to the agency which uses the classification system. Used on a whole bunch of Texas school district pages[1]. On a random sampling of about 10 of these pages, only 1 actually mentioned the TEA rating in the article text. Wouldn't a simple wikilink from the mention of the rating in the article text be more straightforward? This template seems to be redundant --Bwithh 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kamope · talk · contributions 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be expanded. Being under construction isn't a viable reason to delete. Just H 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Just H. Dfrg.msc 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however, it would make way more sense to have something drawn up like {{TEA district rating|AA}} and then have WP:AWB replace the coding.. or at least have a redirect. Separate templates is redundant. drumguy8800 C T 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consolidated them... when this runs its course, the template should be replaced with the text "{{TEA district rating|AA}}". The other 4 templates have already been fixed. drumguy8800 C T 12:08, 12 February 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 page.

Template:Sockpuppet-afraid 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 userfy. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to suspect that someone is afraid of sockpuppets Kamope · talk · contributions 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move into userspace. I think this would be better as a userbox. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just added 33 characters to the template... maybe someone should take a look? Gracenotes ^T § 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move into userspace. agreed. this is user box material.--Hollerbackgril 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with extreme prejudice. A light-hearted take on sockpuppetry (/me misses the old sockpuppet image). If this is inappropriate for Template:, move it to the userspace of its creator - failing that, I'll happily adopt it. Chris cheese whine 06:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Template is not helpful or noteworthy. Khatru2 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the nom statement at its face value... erm, the template meant to be humorous and satirical. It's quite possible that Kamope is also being facetious, but I doubt it. While making this template into a userbox seems like a good idea, losing the form of {{sockpuppet}} sort of makes the content become trite and unoriginal... sort of like Vladimir Nabokov translating Eugene Onegin. There won't be such a loss if it gets deleted, but if not keep, then ~~degrade~~ userfy it (the creator, it should be noted, hasn't edited in a bit less than half a year, so thanks Chriscf). Gracenotes ^T § 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace Probably meant to be a big userbox. Dfrg.msc 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace - This is good humour. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 00:00, 18 February 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 page.