Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 18

< July 17	July 19 >

July 18 edit

Template:Chile U-20 Squad 2007 World Cup 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. Sr 13 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion had made by WikiProject football, all these tp should be deleted. — Matthew_hk t c 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All which templates? Will there be more nominations? Should there be one mass nomination? Argyriou (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been, in the past. All these = all similar templates that may appear in the future. So delete. Punkmorten 23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm as discussed previously on WP:FOOTY and as per previous deletions. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous squad template deletions. Jogurney 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussions by the football project that developed consensus, as well as links to the application of that consensus to various TFDs can be seen at User:Neier/Soccer templates. - Neier 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Darwinek 21:31, 22 July 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 section.

Template:notify 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 Deleted (CSD G6). kingboyk 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused template. — The Evil Spartan 18:04, 18 July 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 section.

Template:Appletons talk and Template:1911 talk 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 both. IronGargoyle 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous talk page clutter. We already use {{1911}} and {{Appletons}} on the articles, and there's simply no reason to add this to talk pages too (where it's irrelevant and most people won't care to see it, quite frankly). If there's some so-say technical reason for this I don't buy it. Use "what links here" instead of categories, put the category back into the main template, or at the very least make these talk page templates invisible and output a category only. --kingboyk 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a long discussion about the article-space templates back in March, when they decided to move all this to talk pages. Apparently the categories are of value. Tualha (Talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce. I agree that these clutter up the talk pages unnecessarily. I propose we make them, not invisible as kingboyk proposes, but quite small, say about userbox size, so they can be seen but don't take up so much real estate. Tualha (Talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tualha's proposal. Chris Buttigieg 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template provides useful information. Captain panda 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the case for deleting this template, but I'm also aware of at least one page that lacked author attribution on the main article and had it in the talk. Be aware that other similar cases may exist and that deletion of this template, if performed, should be done with a careful eye to not remove information missing from the templates in the article. MrZaius^talk 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - just about - because we actually need a form of notification somewhere. I also had concerns as to why it had been added to the talk page, mainly from what I saw as either a repeat from the article page - or that is where it should be,- and actually talk page may not contain anything from, in this case, Encyclopedia Britannia but will agree with user Tualha's idea. If this works can we not then shrink the same on the article page - Edmund Patrick 12:20, 23 July 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 section.

Template:Entries of the Eurovision Song Contest 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. IronGargoyle 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year should be used instead. Fred Bradstadt 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Fred Bradstadt Harlowraman 03:57, 19 July 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 section.

Template:CSSRtable 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 Deleted (nonsense, orphan) --kingboyk 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this for speedy as patent nonsense, but was told to take it here instead. Appears to fall under "something made up in school one day" if not "patent nonsense". — heqs ·:. 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag. This simply isn't Patent nonsnese. Some micronations are notable. Howver, there appear to be zero google hits for this one, and when micro nations are notable, it is pretty much always in significant part though an online presence. Delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delate not NotableAdyarboy 17:43, 18 July 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 section.

Template:Wrestling spoilers 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. Sr 13 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, and overreaching by editors who subscribe to a particular WikiProject. Tony Sidaway 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't needed. It is definitely not Wikipedia policy to only trust USTV as a source. Of course, all claims in articles should be verified, but there are plenty of existing templates for this. Lilac Soul 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lilac Soul Harlowraman 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A misleading template that claims false authority. This template, for example, implies that you could not include any non-US content or content from newspapers. Delete with prejudice. - perfectblue 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since when was this a guideline? Since never. --Haemo 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WikiProject asserting WP:OWNership of their area? Say it ain't so! (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:15, 24 July 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 section.

Template:Eastern Chalukya infobox 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. Sr 13 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an infobox that existed on only one page. I have copied the infobox directly onto that page, and now I'm proposing this template for deletion. — Lilac Soul 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not used anywhere. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom —MJCdetroit 02:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: single-use template. — mholland (talk) 02:06, 19 July 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 section.

Template:Worldhiphop 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 redirect to Template:Hiphop, with history merge. Sr 13 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Hiphop. Λυδαcιτγ 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lilac Soul 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaced by hiphop templateCosprings 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lilac Soul Harlowraman 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, no links from mainspace, only one transclusion in a user sandbox. Gracenotes^T § 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or redirect, why not :) Gracenotes^T § 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no need for deletion. Redirect helps confirm GFDL too, if {{hiphop}} used any content from this one. The Evil Spartan 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since it seems like the better option. --Haemo 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Evil Spartan. T Rex | talk 05:42, 24 July 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 section.

Template:Blpdispute 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 / no consensus. This seems to fall somewhere between the two. It looks like there are benefits to having this template around, so long as it is not used on clear-cut cases and Category:Disputed biographies of living persons doesn't get backlogged. If there are potential legal problems with this template (IANAL), then it should be brought to the attention of WP:OFFICE. Mike Peel 11:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful. Material violating BLP should be removed. Delete to prevent possible misunderstandings of the policy. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The template that goes on talk pages warning of the BLP policy is useful. Putting this template on an article page seems to be lawsuit-bait. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Tom & Argyriou. The template is very unhelpful - anything that would deserve this tag should be "removed immediately and without discussion" (WP:BLP). --Tim4christ17 ^talk 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Material meeting the criteria for the use of this template should be removed, so there is no need for this template. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sefringle^Talk 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Adyarboy 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Won't complain if somebody speedies it; it's blatantly in opposition to BLP policy and best practice. --kingboyk 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - *sigh*. This is another call for deletion under the mistaken assumption that people have nothing better to do than sit around and edit Wikipedia all day. Take this scenario: 1) I see an article with some BLP issues; 2) I don't have time to do a neat cleanup (e.g., I want to spend time with my kids, I have to go to work, etc.); 3) I understand that just removing the information will probably just be undone, and, like I said, I don't have time to put up a protracted defense at ANI. Not to mention other possibilities: tagging an article, and slowly getting to work on it. This, honestly, reminds me of the deletion request for {{ad}}: it falsely assumes we have time to immediately fix every error we see. The Evil Spartan 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have talk pages for this sort of thing, you know. Argyriou (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then you have to figure out who the person who inserted the BLP problematic stuff was and that can be subtle and hard to figure out if there are multiple major contributers to the problem and even if you do do that, the person can just wipe whatever warning they receive and future editors who come to the article who would fix it/could fix it/could help deal with the problem might not know. Miss Mondegreen talk 22:28, July 18 2007 (UTC)

This template doesn't do what you think it does. All it does is say "there's a BLP problem here". You're thinking about the {{uw-biog}} series of templates. Besides, how much harder is it to find a statement which looks libellous and delete it, with an edit summary of BLP? That accomplishes more, for about the same amount of effort. And I was referring to article talk pages, not user talk pages. That's not that hard, either: go to the talk page, click the little plus sign at the top, and write "BLP problem" with a description of what you see. Then someone more knowledgeable about WP policy will go and fix it for you. Argyriou (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the Evil Spartan and my follow-up to that below. I'm getting more and more concerned about this sort of narrowing. Are their problems on Wikipedia? Yes. But the idea that there is only one solution to every problem, which seems to become more and more popular makes it a lot harder for people to contribute--more steps to follow, and they just don't bother if they have little time. In case no one remembers, none of the contributers here are being paid or given any sort of compensation, so to say that tagging an article isn't good enough is really ridiculous. You can compensate for them by being notified every time the tag is used, or setting up a page where BLP watchdogs are notified. But uh, are you kidding? Miss Mondegreen talk 22:28, July 18 2007 (UTC)
- I am completely in agreement that there isn't just one correct solution to every problem. Best practices management doesn't work well here: It tends to lead to "there's only one right way to do things, and every thing else is WRONG!" That's not how Wikipedia should work. After all, this is a wiki. szyslak 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While The Evil Spartan's arguments have merit, I feel it's better to simply revert, undo, or do a quick delete of the questionable material. It can always be cleaned up later by someone who has time. How about a template called something like "BLP-recent-questionable" that shows nothing on the page but adds the article to Category:Disputed biographies of living persons, or a new category, to alert people that questionable claims have been recently reverted and they should keep an eye on it? Maybe I'm getting too Rube Goldberg (Heath Robinson to the Brits in the room)... Tualha (Talk) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Evil Spartan We do need it as there is a lot of edit wars in Biography so need it Harlowraman 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this template. My goal was to provide a quick, easy way to attract attention to BLP problems, especially for new users or those with limited time on their hands. Yes, content that violates BLP should be removed immediately. I agreed with that proposition when I created this tag, and I agree with it now. But it's also better to rewrite a biased article than to just put a {{POV}} tag on it. But are we talking about deleting the POV tag? Unfortunately, there is a gray area between BLP compliance and non-BLP compliance, just as there's a gray area between bias and neutrality. So the "remove it immediately" practice has its limits in effectiveness. I meant this tag's use to be limited to "borderline" cases, which is why I added the language, "If a claim indisputably violates policy, remove it immediately (bolded) instead of using this template". (A while ago someone removed the important word "indisputably", which I've restored to clarify that blatant cases should be deleted, not tagged.) But, there's been a problem... Since I created the tag, it's rarely been used for its intended purpose. I don't mean that it's been used as a substitute for fixing obvious BLP violations, as others have feared. It's been used as more of a "cleanup tag for bios" instead of a flag specific to possible BLP violations. Looking through Category:Disputed biographies of living persons, I see articles that appear to have been tagged for reasons unrelated to BLP: they're stubs, they're too hagiographic, or they just need cleanup/wikification. Several months later, another template was created, one whose wording is much closer to the ideal method for dealing with BLP problems: {{BLPC}}. Gracenotes merged it with {{blpdispute}} a couple of weeks ago; merging the other way has been on my to-do list ever since. Therefore, I think the best solution, at least for now, is to redirect to {{BLPC}}. OTOH, I honestly don't care if either template is deleted, if the community decides to do so. szyslak 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've de-merged the {{BLPC}} tag for now, for comparison between the two and to illustrate its advantages over {{blpdispute}}. szyslak 06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If material appears to violate BLP, it should be removed, not tagged. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Open to misunderstanding. BLP violations should be removed. ElinorD (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP policy on deletion is clear, and unlike most other content policies, has a legal consequence regarding libel laws, which chnage from place to place. I am a keen defender of cleanup tags, but a BLP violation has to be fixed in the spot. If there is need to discuss, an AfD is a pefect place to do so.--Cerejota 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a talk page template that introduces the concepts of BLP to new users. It would be wrong to presume that people edit Wikipedia with a full and clear understanding of its policies. - perfectblue 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsI think {{BLPC}} is much better than this one, and failing a deletion, {{blpdispute}} should be merged to it. However, I'd guess that a user new enough to not know about BLP isn't very likely to know about how to use templates, either. Argyriou (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a difference between the templates. I see using BLPC for clear violations that you personally can't take care of for some reason and Blpdispute for when the article looks suspect but you don't know enough or don't have the time to look enough at the references etc to see whether or not there's a BLP violation or not. One says this needs to be taken care of right now and one says there may be an issue, if there is, take care of it. If we only use one, I'd rather have Blpdispute because it simply covers a wider range of things. But I'd prefer to have both--be specific as possible. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:49, July 19 2007 (UTC)

Comment the problem(s) with {{BLPC}} (which I had redirected to this one about half a month ago, because this one is at least more complete/informative), in my humble opinion is that 1. It's an eyesore (fixable) 2. It provides a general directive rather than indicating a specific problem 3. As several voters have indicated, unsourced controversial information should be removed, not tagged. This applies to BLPC as well as Blpdisputed. Gracenotes^T § 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sometimes, BLP is not a clear-cute case; a warning is very appropriate in that case. --Haemo 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said before, if it violated BLP, especially if it's defamatory or libelous etc. it should be removed immediately. I ^{(said) (did)} 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP issues are not something you resolve with a template. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The presence of the template makes people aware of the problem, whereas simply removing info often leads to constant reverts. Basejumper 18:21, 26 July 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 section.