Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22 edit

Football squad 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. IronGargoyle 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been generally agreed at WP:FOOTY that only squad lists for FIFA World Cup involvement should exist. — Darwinek 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the standard set for only World Cup international squad templates. --fuzzy510 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged the seven nominations for these templates into one. All prior comments were made 7 times over, copying and pasting, etc. Given that,
Delete templates as editorial decision of WikiProject; given that, they should be covered as housekeeping. Gracenotes^T § 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per prior concensus. Neier 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. How many can you place in a player's article? Currrent club and FIFA WC (if he played) is plenty. Alexf(t/c) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all yes delete the Polish u20 one. squads for euro or wc i dont have a problem with, but that u20 shouldnt be up there
Delete all, they have no place here. Punkmorten 14:00, 25 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.

MLB All-Star Summary 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. IronGargoyle 00:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note If this is deleted, then the Category I created for these needs to be deleted as well. And btw, we have lots and lots and lots of similar templates for sporting events that are only used on one article. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:55, 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.

MLB All-Star Lineups 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. IronGargoyle 00:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:40, 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.

MLB All-Star Umpires 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. IronGargoyle 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:38, 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.

AL All-Star Roster 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. IronGargoyle 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:35, 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.

NL All-Star Roster 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. IronGargoyle 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:33, 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.

MLB All-Star Game 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. IronGargoyle 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just one article instead of actually putting the text into the article. Substituted the text, so the template can go. fuzzy510 21:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2002, 2003 and 2004 templates as well. --fuzzy510 23:30, 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:Copyrighted 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 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, depreciated template. Also, the name "Copyrighted" is misleading — even images released under a free license are still technically copyrighted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No images currently use this template, and any new images uploaded with this template are subject to speedy deletion. No reason to keep it around. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After the template is deleted, this name should probably be redirected to {{db-noncom}}. --B 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely should not, because "copyrighted" is very ambiguous. Even GFDL-licensed content is still technically copyrighted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:03, 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.

Template:Tolkien-Language-stub 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 Speedily deleted - main author request. Mike Peel 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was part of an attempt to subsort articles tagged with Template:Tolkien-stub, but hasn't been useful (was only used on one article when I encountered it). Subsorting of these stubs into subtopics is better done by intersecting with the category system, such as Category:Middle-earth languages (most of which need to be merged anyway). Carcharoth 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. Carcharoth 17:32, 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.

Tramlink 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. IronGargoyle 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tramlink insert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink three routes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink two routes to one (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink three routes to one (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink two routes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink route (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Start Tramlink box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 1 colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 2 colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 3 colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 1 link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 2 link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 3 link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tramlink Route 3 link colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. The relevant project pages have been updated. Hat tip to Pickle UK (talk · contribs) for completing the conversion. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 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:PoemOfTheRing 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 Cast into the Fires of Mount Doom! IronGargoyle 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template being used to quote text of a poem. This seems an inappropriate use to me, as such quoting should be done on a case-by-case basis and not done using templates. This template was in use at One Ring and Rings of Power, where I substituted the template so it is no longer in use. - Carcharoth 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. Carcharoth 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potential copyvio even when subst'd, as it seems to incorporate the entire poem. MrZaius^talk 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you believe we used to have an article just on the Ring inscription? :-) It was originally spun off from One Ring and the article just before merging back into One Ring can be seen here. As for the 'entire poem' issue, I've always thought that as a small part of a larger work, it is OK to quote as long as there is critical commentary. Remove from those articles for now if you want, but there are sources that can be quoted that talk about the Ring verse, and that would justify quoting the verse in full. Carcharoth 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reproduction of the entire verse might be warranted in the context of critical commentary, but is a template off to the side of that commentary, rather than quoting and explaining each individual line w/o reproducing the entire original text in its original layout, not raise potential issues? MrZaius^talk 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I nominated the template for deletion. :-) Carcharoth 23:10, 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:Shortland Street Character 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 following conversion. IronGargoyle 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is unneeded as there is a better template: The generic character one. Liamodwyer13 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use Template:Infobox character instead. All the fields in the Shortland Street infobox are also extant in the general infobox. Shalom ^Hello 12:45, 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:Koreanruler/Test 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 Speedily deleted - CSD G2 - test page. Mike Peel 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused test template that has long since served its purpose. PC78 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic delete per nom, someone please do it! --Cerejota 12:40, 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:Korean/Test 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 Speedily deleted - CSD G2 - test page. Mike Peel 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused test template that has long since served its purpose. — PC78 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic delete per nom, someone please do it! --Cerejota 12:40, 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:Spam-request 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. IronGargoyle 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators will find external links about the subjects useful, spam links should be removed but you can't just prohibit the addition of all external links, some\most of which are helpful. — Yonatan ^talk 03:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit but do not delete. It should be toned down to state simply that Wikipedia is not an advertising service, etc., just as anyone creating a new page sees the same warning above the edit box. Stating that the page is "patrolled" is not a good idea - it may not be true, and it's not relevant. Just tell users to avoid WP:COI and hope that they follow the advice. Shalom ^Hello 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any such caveat, once toned down, belongs as an HTML comment. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the changes I am doing as per Yonatan take.--Cerejota 12:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the comment was not supported by policy, so it should take. This tamplate is great way to patrol spam magnet pages, and to warn anti-spammers of spam activity. I see much value in it.--Cerejota 12:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't we already have Template:Nomorelinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for this purpose, or is this directed at a slightly different audience? While nothing will stop the hardcore spammer, a friendly warning might prevent a newbie from unintentionally spamming. I find shorter manually created variations of the 'nomorelinks' message in many articles, and it does seem to help reduce the spam. --Versageek 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Edit I think we should keep one of the two templates as an html comment - with a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not a directory/collection of links and links placed only to promote ones site/business will be removed. - for use where we tend to get large collections of promotional links. --Versageek 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK WP:EL doesn't apply to non-mainspace pages (and if it does, it shouldn't). I don't see why we shouldn't allow promotional links in the article creation request page in a bid to help article creators get more information about a subject they're gonna write an article about. The links are not gonna help those websites, as hardly any people are gonna click on them except those who wanna create the article, and they aren't gonna help their search engine rankings due to the nofollow tags. I'd have no (or rather less of a) problem if this were a template geared at main namespace articles, but it isn't, it's made for the article creation page where I don't see the use for it. If somebody adds a kinda spammy link that has information about the subject to the article creation page, there should be no problem with that and if he adds a link that's complete spam and has no information about the subject, then he's obviously acting in bad faith and the warning wouldn't have helped anyway. Yonatan ^talk 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Obnoxious, oversized, and apparently permanent template's almost as bad as nomorelinks. Unfriendly, implies assumption of poor faith on the part of new editors. That said, I'd say delete nomorelinks as well, as it falsely and blatently tells the editor that no links that aren't already included in an article can possibly meet WP:EL. Seperate nom, or will the nom expand the nomination to nomorelinks on the same grounds? MrZaius^talk 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on!!! Now anti-spamming patrolling equal biting? You are an editor since 2005, and should know much better than that... A spam magnet page is a spam magenet page is a spam magnet page, good faith or no good faith assumed.--Cerejota 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I do know much better than that. This template, however, is not the act of patrolling, it's a separate, albeit related warning message. The wording as of my edit implicitly negated WP:BOLD and carries with it an implicit statement that no EL are good EL. When I posted my comment it read "DO NOT post external URLs for references, as it will be removed along with the article request" which, as you said upon removing it, "is not supported by policy." The bolded warning and the comments above likening it to nomorelinks were, however, the primary things that I focused on. I did not initially recognize that the template was intended solely for the Requested articles queue. I do now and the obnoxious, overstated warning has now been taken off. Switch to keep.

That said, the space spent defining "wikipedia spam" is largely wasted. No need for special jargon there - Might I suggest: "This article or section is patrolled for link spam masquerading as article requests. External links mainly intended to promote a website rather than reliable sources suggested for future articles covering notable topics, as well as links to websites which primarily exist to sell goods or services, use objectionable amounts of advertising, or require payment to view the relevant content should be avoided. (You can help!" MrZaius^talk 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) PS: As I state above, I believe that NoMoreLinks is considerably more offensive, especially after Cerejota's recent edit to Spam-request. It needs a complete rewrite or TfD, as its warnings are plainly contradictory to WP:EL.[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.