Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8 edit

Template:Global Flood 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 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete – This template is original research written in the style of an article. The parallel regular article is Deluge (mythology). — ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no purpose, unused, does not belong in Template namespace -- Amazins490 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it is obviously meant to be an article, and not to be used as a template. Global flood redirects to Deluge (mythology). --Ezeu 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion so what if no one really likes it. Still, It is an article that is based on another belief of the world. I think that some people should see if they think it is great. --User:Virtue account 1:33, 9 July 2007.

Articles belong in article space. There is no need for this to be a template. --Ezeu 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article in template space. —SlamDiego_←T 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a template. --Haemo 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not a template. --Emc² • contact me 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a template, and already covered in Deluge. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not a template.--Svetovid 19:06, 14 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:UPN New Jersey 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 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that reflects a defunct television network, UPN. We don't usually have state templates for defunct networks (otherwise, DuMont would have some), and only one of the affiliates in the template (WWOR-TV) has its license and studio in New Jersey anyway. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no need for a state template for a defunct network, especially one that is not being used anyway. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 11 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:WB New Jersey 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 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that reflects a defunct television network, The WB. We don't usually have state templates for defunct networks (otherwise, DuMont would have some), and neither affiliate is actually based in New Jersey (the latter factor recently led to TfDs and deletions of {{ABC New Jersey}}, {{CBS New Jersey}}, {{Fox New Jersey}}, and {{CBS New Jersey}}). — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - template unused, network defunct, no stations in state, let this be junked! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:03, 11 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:I Missouri 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 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that reflects a past name for the ION Television network. {{Other Missouri Stations}} is used in place of this one on all three articles linked from here. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - out of date reference to the network, other templates do a sufficient job in listing the stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 11 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:Infobox City Poland 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 as no longer needed, and not used in article namespace. Daniel Case 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No use. Ugly. Obsolete since Template:Infobox Settlement is implemented. Hiuppo 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That template was supposed to be deleted long time ago. Now it is time to do that since all articles using it were converted. - Darwinek 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought we had done this when Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes suggested replacing it. —MJCdetroit 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Visor 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Emc² • contact me 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Better to standardise on Settlement Andy Mabbett 22:52, 11 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.

Otheruses 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 withdrawn. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this nomination is fairly long, so bear with me, please.

On this encyclopedia at the moment, there are twenty-seven Otheruses templates, many of which are simply specializations of other, more generalised Otheruses templates. This is, as I see it, unnecessary, especially in terms of server load (as thse templates do take up a fair amount of space between them).

As a result, I'm proposing a massive merge: as outlined below:

{{Otheruses1}}, {{Otheruses2}}, {{Otheruses3}}, {{Otheruses4}}, {{This}}, {{Two other uses}}, {{Three other uses}}, {{Four other uses}} and {{Otherusesof}} to be merged into {{Otheruses}}, adopting an expandable parameter list similar to the "x other uses" templates;
{{Otheruses5}}, {{Otheruses6}} to be merged into {{For}}, again with an expandable parameter list, similar in style to the "For" template
{{Otherpersons}}, {{Otherpeople2}}, {{Otherpeople3}} and {{Otherpeople4}} to be merged into a new template, {{Otherpeople}}, with the expandable parameter list proposed for "Otheruses" and "For", and the layout of "Otherpeople4"
{{Otherhurricaneuses3}} to be merged into {{Otherhurricaneuses}}, with a style that is a combination of the two, i.e., This article is about the USE1. For the USE2, see the main article, MAIN. For other storms of the same name, see DISAMBIG. ({{Otherhurricaneuses|USE1|USE2|MAIN|DISAMBIG}}
{{Redirect6}} to be merged into {{Redirect}}, with the expandable parameter list suggested above, and the structure of "Redirect6"
{{Distinguish2}} to be merged with {{Distinguish}}, with the structure of "Distinguish2"

Your thoughts would be beneficial. --JB Adder | Talk 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject proposition - First off, it's not a good idea to mention space usage as an argument. What makes you think that this is an issue? By making this one edit, you probably spent more space than the templates you believe are superfluous are currently taking up.

Secondly, it's also not a good plan to merge very high-use templates. Otheruses1, Otheruses2, Otheruses3, Otheruses4, This, Otherusesof, For, Otherpersons, Otherpeople2, Otherpersons, Distinguish, Redirect, and Otheruses have all been indefinitely protected from editing, and as such it's actually not practical to do anything to them.

Thirdly, what is really the reason for doing this? You mention only that it's "unnecessary", and only state that "server load" is the reason. It should be noted that doing anything to often-used templates will cause gigantic server strain for a while as it updates the page caches. While it's probably a good idea to use as few templates as possible (and expand them with parameters), I don't really see all that much to gain here that's worth the trouble. Then again, it might even make it harder for editors to use the templates, since using a specialized template is more straightforward than using one template with specific arguments. —msikma (user, talk) 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful merge(s) - While there isn't much of a need for a merge, I do admit that the system of Otheruses-type templates is extraordinarily messy and redundant - I remember being very confused the first time I needed a specific template from this series. A carefully executed plan that never left any one template dysfunctional would be useful in the long run to make using the templates simpler. I completely reject any idea of template deletion - these templates should not be substituted. Hatnotes are highly visible (which is why they've been protected), and so must be kept standard using templates, rather than text. If the system can be streamlined by a merge, go for it. I'd be willing to help with the edits to protected pages if consensus agrees and a viable plan is made. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject proposition - True, you have to break eggs to make omelets, but I see no omelet at the end of this project, just broken eggs (Wikipedians who have to stop writing and fixing articles while they learn all the ins and outs of new templates). Will readers see an improvement in Wikipedia? No. Will editors find it easier to connect articles? I don't think so. Chris the speller 15:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. This doesn't really fix anything. Users will still have to know what the hell they are doing before using these templates. Not broken, don't fix. --- RockMFR 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I think our hatnote system is pretty broken at the moment, actually. However, this proposal isn't the right fix. A better idea would be a set of new templates, completely orthogonal to the current name scheme. Anything else creates more mess than it removes. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Server load is not an issue (the templates are not being used all at once in any article), and storage capacity is not an issue (the templates are merely a few kilobytes, and Wikipedia is not running out of storage capacity any day soon). --Ezeu 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as the wrong place to propose this. Although they are a family of related templates, and a number of the closest cousins have a lot of redundancy, each redundancy ought to be discussed separately. If I were you, I'd start with one of the simpler proposals (such as Distinguish and Distinguish2), and lay out the details at template:distinguish. I personally would only embrace the proposal it if made the template family easier to use, and you haven't made that case here. Server load is not the right reason to make the proposal; see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.--Father Goose 19:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject (problem with status quo not explained). I strongly second the last comment. This should be discussed on each talk page like a normal merge. The nominator hasn't explained how their proposal makes the templates easier to use, which it might, but bear in mind that the fact that two templates might conceivably do the same thing doesn't mean it isn't easier for the user to have them separate. The only arguments in support were spurious ones about server load and space. If you want a wider re-org of hatnotes, I second what User:Gavia immer said: you can make a mock-up in your user space. You may need to use new names for new templates and have a bot in place to make the conversions. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in case you hadn't noticed, most of the otheruses templates are just special cases of Otheruses4. This makes for standardization and ease of use of different formats, without messy parameter syntax. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request closure of debate It's been fairly well established that this was a bad way to go about this. While I still think the system is confusing and broken (a belief I am not alone in), the method of repair I have chosen fails to eliminate these problems, and instead creates more in the process. As a result, I ask for this debate to be closed. --JB Adder | Talk 00:42, 13 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:User zero-tolerance 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 and split. The userbox migration doesn't need TfD, so I am being bold and migrating it. This is particulary true because a "zero tolerance policy" on vandalism isn't actually reflective of policy. As for keeping the picture, the majority want it removed, ergo I am migrating the template to User:UBX/zero-tolerance without the photo of the former NYC mayor. I am creating a seperate template for the substantial minority of Giuliani enthusiasts here: User:UBX/zero-tolerance/Giuliani. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any endorsment of Rudy is going to be automatic grade A polemic, this template is just an end run around the CSD clause forbiding polemic userboxes. Unless someone wants to remove Rudy and replace him with something less polemic like Image:Stop hand.svg--172.149.206.219 12:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it could be clearer what it is telling you exactly about the user, I don't think it is "divisive" or "inflammatory" as you suggest. Rudy just seems to be someone associated with the words used. If you don't have a problem with using "zero tolerance" then I don't see how the image would be a problem. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and at the least change the picture. But a claiming a zero tolerance policy on vandalism makes no sense, because vandals can not be blocked without proper warning. Zero tolerance would mean no warning. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone is entitled to support a zero-tolerance policy on vandalism, even if they don't have the technical power to implement it. Walton^One 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that's not what this says. The template says the user has a zero-tolerance policy. That implies that they enforce it (say, by skipping to t4 every time, or saying "Now an admin will block you forever"), which is not allowed. Either way, templates saying "Policy X is wrong!" don't belong in templatespace, so maybe userfy. -Amarkov moo! 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace picture. Wikipedia is becoming too politically correct. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how will replacing the picture help that? —Angr 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a user to have a zero-tolerance policy, he or she would have to have the power to expel vandals on a first offense. —SlamDiego_←T 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, as is commonly done with such templates, especially one that is commonly used like this. It's meant to be a joke, and the picture is the point of the template. But, frankly, I don't feel strongly one way or another. Gracenotes^T § 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change picture I love template but what I think we should do is replace the image with "ZERO TOLERANCE. I tried to do it but it didn't work.
Keep. Perfectly valid userbox expressing a Wikipedia-related viewpoint. The picture of Giuliani isn't a political endorsement of him, it simply refers to his association with "zero tolerance" policies when he was Mayor of New York. And, as per my reply to Amarkov above, just because individual users can't necessarily implement a zero-tolerance policy doesn't mean they can't express their support for such a policy. Walton^One 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not change picture A picture of Giuliani on a userbox is in no way a political endorsement of him. If the userbox stated that it explicitly supports him, that would be a political statement. In fact, someone like him is perfect to associate with "zero tolerance". The lines "has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism" shouldn't be taken too literally and there is already an alternative userbox in case someone prefers a different image. Spellcast 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, change picture Keep because it underscores Wikipedia policy. Change picture, as while I'm ok with it, we are in a political season with Giuliani as a candidate, and having his image on this userbox gives him unfair advantage. If and when he drops out or loses, bring it back. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plain fact: In no way is zero tolerance Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego_←T 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another plain fact: In no way does this userbox claim that it is. And I hardly think having his picture here "gives him an unfair advantage" in whatever political race he's in. —Angr 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I was rebutting exactly the claim (by Stevietheman) “it underscores Wikipedia policy”. I would appreciate your not monkey-dancing. —SlamDiego_←T 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As to the issue of whether it promotes Guiliani: The userbox endorses something, and associates that which it endorses with Guiliani. —SlamDiego_←T 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change picture, because while I agree that I do not tolerate vandalism; I do not exactly support former Mayor Giuliani. Perhaps we can find something more neutral and less political? Maybe have a barbarian Vandal being crossed out or something? Or an image of graffiti being crossed out? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe change wording to clarify it as an opinion. Smokizzy (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Userfy and change picture. A user shouldn't have to implicitly endorse Giuliani to put the userbox on his/her page. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Let's use WP:GUS on it and let's all be happy. 84.145.245.161 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep/changepicture Giuliani is and asshole so picture to the namesake of the term Vandal, the barbarians that invaded the roman empire. bring back Latin!
keep Come on, it's funny. If you get rid of the picture there would be no point for it. Userboxes don't need to be politically neutral. -Franzose
keep, change picture the picture is inappropiate, but the written content of the user template is acceptable for userspace.--Sefringle^Talk 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's funny, not political. Not even clear what 'zero tolerance' would mean as a WP policy on vandalism, but it's hard to see this template as doing any harm. The message is probably, 'Be firm on resisting vandalism!' EdJohnston 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change picture. Keep, because it's perfectly ok for users to say "I hate vandalism and stamp it out whenever I see it". Change picture, because I don't like looking at Giuliani's face, and I'm not alone. It's a pretty tenuous connection to "zero-tolerance", too. Suggested picture: . Tualha (Talk) 01:38, 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.