Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

January 2 edit

Template:RouteboxMO 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(Упражнение В!) 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, deprecated template replaced by {{MORoutebox}}. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TMF. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 8 January 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:WoS 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this template links to copyright violations (see talk page and CVG discussion). If so, this should be deleted, as WP:EL prohibits copyright violations. --Hbdragon88 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if violation, don't delete if not If this is a copyright violation then it should be deleted. If it turns out not to be then it should not. --Sir James Paul 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is nothing inherente in the template that it is generally linking to material which is copyrighted. The same links can be made without the template. --Frodet 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the above reason -- Zagrebo 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So? You can make the link yourself. But having it as a template gives it the illusion that it's an acceptable link, when it's not. Other templates (like ones to lyric sites) have also been deleted as well. Hbdragon88 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is a lot of material at the site in question which does not violate copyright. The policy of the site is to obtain permissions, and the list is growing. --Frodet 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{WoS pub}} has the same issues --Pak21 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I am one of the co-maintainers of World of Spectrum)[reply]
Comment: and {{Wos title}} as well --Pak21 09:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia must not overtly support piracy.71.248.146.230 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the site has significant material for which permission has been obtained then this template is useful. It is up to the editor placing the link to ensure they comply with Wikipedia policy. Surely Template:Youtube represents the same siuation - this has a prominent usage note about copyrights (good idea) but has not been deleted. -CarelessHair 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Careless. Joe 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: site has significant material, per Careless. --Oscarthecat 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the nomination was done on spurious grounds. // Liftarn
Delete - absolutely - it's been established that we can't even link to Youtube articles because they might be a copyright violation (see User:Dmcdevit/YouTube). This is even clearer cut - it tells me how to download Bubble Bobble right here [1]. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:37, 10 January 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:Catholic-expand 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invites editors to expand an article using the 100 year old (often biased) Catholic Encyclopedia. JASpencer, who created the template, has been adding it automatically to 100s of articles, if they need expansion or not, if the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia material is appropriate or not. Opens the way for similar templates from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and dozens of other old encyclopedias, or any other external sources at all. Notices for expansion from external sources should not be in the main article space. ~~See also TfD for "Catholic-link" below.~~ --Stbalbach 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure I'm ready to support total deletion, but:1) should be put on talk page not article page, 2)should be rephrased more tentatively & 3) should not be used indiscriminately -the article I saw it on would not have benefited from any CE content & as far as I could see had never had any. Johnbod 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)UPDATE:1&2 have been conceded below, 3 remains an issue.Johnbod 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inappropriate nomination, nomination does not list a single WP:TFD criteria. This nomination seems to confuse two issues. (1) He objects to the [articles project]. That's a legitimate point of view, but he should try to have a go on those talk pages.(2) An objection to the "blind" application, which is an indication that he has not read the (vigorous) debate [[2]] - or applied WP:AGF. Now it may be the case that the template has been applied too enthusiastically and that's being calmed down, but it was not done blindly. I'd also say that balbach could benefit from reading WP:CIVIL, as can be seen on the talk page comments. JASpencer 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed the template instructions to read "for use on talk pages". But talk page templates are brown banners that go at the top of the page. ~~If the template is in a brown banner format like other talk page templates, I'll withdraw the nomination, but the way it is now, it is designed to go in article space.~~ -- Stbalbach 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the very minimum, the functionality of {{Catholic-link}} and {{Catholic-expand}} should be merged. Since these templates are (as far as I can tell) identical except for providing a link, the discussions should be merged, too. I also agree the current message is inappropriate for article space. If an editor knows of a source that could help add content to an article, and the editor can't add that content directly, isn't it normal to just mention the source on the talk page for other editors to deal with? (P.S., I noticed this because I recently created {{Catholic-cite}}...) Gimmetrow 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair enough point about the Talk pages and not the main article space. Mea Culpa. The reasoning for this was that this was a substitute for a stub category. I will not be doing this again and I've changed the templates to say this. JASpencer 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goldfritha 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but amend if necessary - note that this template came about after discussion about whether a stub template relating to the Catholic Encyclopedia was appropriate (at the Stub sorting WikiProject). It was decided that a stub type wasn't appropriate, but that a template like this would be a reasonable alternative, in much the same way that templates exist indicating that articles have used outdated (and therefore biased) text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia britannica. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what {{Catholic}} and {{Catholic-cleanup}} do? Gimmetrow 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think those templates inform when an article already uses a lot of material from the CE, whereas this one informs when CE is available but has not been used in the article - which is a novelty for Wikipedia, this is the first I've ever seen it done for any source. -- Stbalbach 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I changed the templates to "standard-talk" format, as it is a talk page template. -- Stbalbach 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A step backwards. Many articles in Wikipedia had their origins in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 or Catholic Encyclopedia articles, often simply cut-and-pasted here. The balanced and critical Jewish Encyclopedia was not so treated, I've noticed, even for Old Testament subjects. Many, perhaps most of these articles have been modernized and corrected of their antiquated or partisan slant. In general, no template for Wikipedia articles can be automatically applied. A cut-and-pasted note on a talkpage — "This article might benefit from material in the Catholic Encyclopedia" — where explicitly relevant, might be a useful head's-up. --Wetman 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the templates should be deleted, but in case they are not, I made some changes to the wording to better reflect the concerns of cutting and pasting. -- Stbalbach 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment There is an issue here. From the project talk page (link by JASpencer above, and by him):

"...OK this is what I propose as exit criteria. I'll start applying this soon unless people have any comments:

If you wish to remove an article from this project please make sure that it meets one of the following two criteria:

A. There is a Wikipedia article that (1) addresses the same subject, (2) has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article and (3) has the template {{Catholic}} within the article.

or

B. There is a Wikipedia article that (1) addresses the same subject, (2) has a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article and (3) has the template Catholic-expand within the article."

-there is therefore no escape from a CE-expand template for any article with the same title as a CE article unless it has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article. This can't possibly be right! JASpencer has tried to explain what he is trying to do on that page, but without success as far as I am concerned. Johnbod 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias. There is even a Wikipedia project set up to counter this type of thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -- Stbalbach 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It's a total nonsense. The appropiate way to do it is to use Template:Expand and, if appropiate, suggest that this or that source may be helpful (in the talk page). Also, we are talking of a 100 year old Catholic encyclopedia that is not modern, accurate or neutral in most cases - just a historical reference, maybe useful for Catholic themes (though official source only). --Sugaar 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wetman. These old encyclopedias may be nice to read for nostalgia's sake, in many areas their coverage is wildly outdated. Editors should be encouraged to go to a fine library and consult some solid reliable sources instead; Wikipedia suffers too much already from the 'this source is online'-bias. — mark ✎ 08:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. People are more than capable to make their own mind. This is completely out of place. If amended, keep as long as in neutral tone as for 1911 Britannica. Asterion^talk 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the nom but wanted to add my vote in case that nom is not counted as a vote. It is an unprecedented template telling users what external source to use in expanding the article. It is a dangerous precedent and arguably POV and systemic bias, per the "Further Comments" of Johnbod above.-- Stbalbach 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are way too many articles based on hopelessly outdated encyclopedias as it is. No need to create even more. _R_ 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but amend as necessary. Historical resources are critical so that Wikipedia can reflect a global-historical sensibility instead of limiting itself to the fingernail of the present. I would like to see more articles that integrate historical points of view with contemporary points of view. Freder1ck 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia has moved well beyond the time when it could be improved by the use of material from a biased source created a century ago. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, At this rate every article in the Wikipedia will have a template at the bottom requesting users help update the Christian wikipedia. It doesn't make sense -- even before you take into account the POV problem. Jeff Carr 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template isn't dictating whether or not the CE is used as a source; it identifies the article as one that uses or used the CE as a source. If the objection is that the CE is a biased source, deleting this template doesn't solve anything. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the templates. They don't dictate whether the CE should be used, nor has been used. They mention that the CE could be used. A nice sentiment in theory but in practice it's practically cruft. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is also applied (see talk page) to articles that have never used CE material, but give an external link to the CE article on the subject Johnbod 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wetman and Sugaar. There isn't usually any useful information there to be had. When there is, an editor can take eleven seconds to make explicit note of it on the article's talk page. The templates sitting around add very little helpful direction. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't best pleased to see this template turn up on an article I had been working on using a more reliable, up-to-date source. A lot of research has gone on over the last ninety years and WP should reflect that. You can read the old "Catholic Encyclopaedia" if you like at its own site online; I don't see the point of duplicating it here. If articles are too short, I believe we already have a general expansion template. --Folantin 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, users shouldn't be encouraged to use such old and biased tertiary(sic!) source. MaxSem 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wetman, Coelacan, Folantin, etc; addition of CE material is not helpful, a more useful goal would be to ensure that the CE-inspired material we have is updated and referenced to reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template message says the CE "could be used as a source in this article". This message seems rather unusual for a talk page header, although {{FAOL}} has a rather similar message. Apparently the template was originally intended as a way for WP:CATH to track progress. The idea could be recast more clearly as a project assessment template under a different template name. Gimmetrow 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been away from a computer for a few days. One of the saddest things about this debate since then has been the commitment to an unrelenting hostility to anything with a strongly Catholic outlook (especially with anything that was written more than twenty five years ago). Is a template deletion discussion really the place to assert the wish for a late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias? 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And another thing. There's not one Catholic link template on a main page. Especially with Catholic-link this argument is outdated. The only argument left is an intense dislike of the Catholic church circa 1910. JASpencer 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help clarify things. — coelacan talk — 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, yeah, it's all over pages where it's not supposed to be. "There's not one Catholic link template on a main page" is quite wrong, my friend. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Catholic-expand. I see it right now on Pope Honorius I, Agnus Dei, and over 50 more articles instead of talk pages. You've been careless. — coelacan talk — 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, he did say not one {{Catholic-link}} is on a main page. Gimmetrow 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer, a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias," is a good thing. Per WP:RS we are supposed to use scholarly peer-reviewed academic sources. The CE1910 clearly fails that test. It can be used, but it is not a first or optimum choice. It should not be encouraged. Just as EB1911 articles should not be encouraged. It has nothing to do with anti-Catholicism. -- Stbalbach 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you may believe that "a late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias, is a good thing" - but that is directly contrary to WP:NPOV "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." JASpencer 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. A NPOV resource is by definition secular. That is why I chuckled at "secularist systematic" since it is exactly what we are aiming for at Wikipedia. Anyway, this is an interesting tangent but probably nothing to do with keeping or deleting the template. We would be having the same TfD if it was for the secular EB1911. There should be no tags "suggesting" a resource, it has never been done before. -- Stbalbach 00:07, 11 January 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:Infobox MA Route small 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(Упражнение В!) 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, made obsolete by {{Infobox MA Route}}, which has the same functionality. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. TMF's reason sure suits this deletion request. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 8 January 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:StarStruck 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 of both. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently used their mother articles. Basically an infobox, so deleting and substituting the text will do. Also including Template:Pinoy Dream Academy for the same reasons. --Howard the Duck 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use templates. Subst and delete. --Durin 22:53, 2 January 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:SydneySuburbBox2 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(Упражнение В!) 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. No transclutions. --TheJosh 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obsolete. Orderinchaos78 03:39, 10 January 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:2006nweatjax 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(Упражнение В!) 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A box score, which we don't do in this format for any other games. Not to mention that this is an inappropriate use for template-space, given that every game would require its own template. --Ral315 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The code would be unwieldy within the article, especially if its expanded to include every drive, which given the linear nature of football, is possible. Also, nominator did not make it clear how this is inappropriate use of template space other than what appears to be a lack of a precedent, which appears to be instruction creep. Just H 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were to be done for every single NFL game played, it would take up about 280 templates a year. MLB would be over 2500 templates a year. See NFL playoffs, 2005-06 for a better way to do scoring summaries, without a template. Ral315 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, thank you for that link, I was unaware. It doesn't look as good, but it works, and that's the top concern. Just H 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: to quote the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page.", and this can't be used in that manner. --Pak21 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comments We have numerous cases were templates are used to keep unwieldy unformations (e.g. timelines) out of articles. This should be in the article, though.Circeus 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak. Joe 06:24, 7 January 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:Kaboohoo Network 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 Deleted as orphan for spam pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created for the sole purpose of advertising these websites. The articles themselves are blantant advertising, and are in the process of being speedily deleted. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest trying to {{db-spam}} the template if it's solely an extention of legitimately {{db-spam}}able articels. 68.39.174.238 09:40, 2 January 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.