Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19 edit

Template:PokePage 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, while well-intentioned, encourages the idea that every Pokemon article must have exactly the same format, which is not the case. Attempts to form preliminary consensus at WT:PCP have been met with no responses, so I'm just going here. -Amarkov moo! 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pages should not be created through the use of templates. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything has been subst'd thank god. But this is yet another of these pokémon templates that had no use. The first being pokestart. TheBlazikenMaster 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pages need to be unique to suit their topics. *Cremepuff 222* 23:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the pokemon project needs to realize that simply making all your articles follow an identical format doesn't actually improve their quality. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're damn right about that. But isn't there a manual of styles Pokémon Article edition? TheBlazikenMaster 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I changed it a while back to be less "You must use this format", and no objections yet. -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me a link? I'm looking for that article, but still can't find it. TheBlazikenMaster 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PCP/S. -Amarkov moo! 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't striving for quality, but for consistency. Consistency doesn't necessaril equate quality, but it's a heck of a lot better than having a lot of different styles. hbdragon88 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When every pokemon article has the exact same lead, it actually hurts the value of the article, because you read the entire paragraph and end up not with a summary of the pokemon, but with a bunch of stuff you already would know if you knew anything about any pokemon. It's a violation of WP:LEDE. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes all the articles seem like they were mass-produced in a factory in the Philippines. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly deleteThis template tries to achieve undefined uniformity. It is not needed at all because two to four words can be written easily. Vikrant Phadkay 14:42, 25 May 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:Ergoth emperor 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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer an article on the Empire of Ergoth.. Furthermore, most (and likely all) of the names are nonexistant and non notable. It is not used anywhere. There is simply no need for this template to be around. — Dooms Day349 21:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if a template is unused, why keep it? :) *Cremepuff 222* 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above - 52 Pickup 13:46, 20 May 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:Kingpriests of Istar 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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer an article on Kingpriests of Istar. Furthermore, every single name of a Kingpriest (with two exceptions, which are redirects to a small blurb on the character's list) is nonexistant and non notable. It is not used anywhere. There is simply no need for this template to be around. — Dooms Day349 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The template is just sitting around wasting space... *Cremepuff 222* 00:05, 20 May 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:IPTroll 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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template created by User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and used solely by him so far; it is duplicative of other templates for warning trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets, and seems to exist solely to assist Merkey in pursuing his campaigns against his "enemies". Its name seems inappropriate as it labels users as "trolls" without being backed by a community or ArbCom ruling, and it also refers to "IP" addresses in its title while the template itself has been amended to mention registered usernames as well, so its name no longer makes sense. — *Dan T.* 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessarily duplicative and entirely needless. Joe 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to existing templates. Jeffrey can place the template on a user subpage if he really wants to use it though. *Cremepuff 222* 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I will make a local copy as suggested. Pleae note Dan T. nominated. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:44, 20 May 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 WP WP 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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for non-existent WikiProject. — Pious 7 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - userbox links to a redirect to WP:COUNCIL, which has its own userbox: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Userbox}} - 52 Pickup 15:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, upon first inspection I assumed it was some sort of userbox example, but it does in fact link to the above, rendering it useless. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use. *Cremepuff 222* 00:03, 20 May 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:Daviscup 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 Procedural close, was tagged as speedy and deleted by another admin ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, identical to {{DavisCupplayerlink}}, not used anywhere. — GregorB 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant and unused. *Cremepuff 222* 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is the only one who has edited the template, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion criterion G7 with {{db-author}}. –Pomte 13:15, 21 May 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.

Christgau rating template prototypes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, author and major contributor's request. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prototypes for part of {{Rating-Christgau}}, never used. I request these four templates be deleted. --PEJL 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I created them to be used as an embedded template, but as this isn't the way it panned out, I'm fine to havethe binned. --linca ^linca 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per creator. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:53, 19 May 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:Exploding organisms 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this template survived a debate in July 2005 (archived here). Though humorous, this template is frivolous, and is not particularly informative. Furthermore, this template is incredibly inconsistent, and is quite broad with its definition of "exploding animals". Only five the examples in the list refer to actual biological cases of animals actually exploding by natural causes (whale, snake, termite, toad, tree), two refer to an urban legend (chicken, bird), three refer to animals that have been rigged with explosives for military or other purposes (bat, donkey, rat), and two refers exclusively to the animals that explode in video games and popular culture (sheep, humans). The most baffling of the links is "Dog" which links to "Anti-tank dog" which is a particularly tenuous connection to the others. These articles have very little to do with one another, and the template seems like little more than a bad joke. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These animals have very little in common, besides being animals. ST47Talk 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not particularly frivolous based on the articles they are navigating between. Andjam 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems completely random as to their definition of 'exploding animals'. I don't think a template is appropriate in this situation.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep amusing and useful addition to the wikipedia project. Nardman1 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "amusing" and "useful" are not valid reasons for keeping. per nom Bulldog123 02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of a bat dropping napalm is not similar to that of a whale exploding, and neither are similar to anti-tank dogs. And a restricted template would be too short to be useful. -Amarkov moo! 02:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this random? There are multiple articles related to the topic of exploding organisms; if any do not, then remove them from the template. As exploding animal says, an exploding animal can be any of the categories listed in the nom, so feel free to divide the template up into categories, though that would seem arbitrary as most of the articles mention some sort of cultural reference. –Pomte 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments given by other people voting keep above. —Lowellian (reply) 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the laugh test. 129.252.89.201 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of the "laugh test" for notability. Axem Titanium 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it links a series of related articles together. Granted, not all of the constituent articles may be notable, that's not a matter for TfD. The template is for navigation between them. Axem Titanium 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and supportive of serious content. Dfrg.msc 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amusing, but not really necessary. I should note that it was probably my fault that there are so many articles about exploding animals, because I wrote Exploding whale. As an aside, Anti-tank dog is not a tenuous link to exploding organisms, as this is all about animals that were made to detonate. As sick as this might be, it's still about explosions. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, and Armarkov. JoshuaZ 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As different as an anti-tank dog is from a frog bursting from inexplicable internal pressures, they still fall under the same topic. The template directs people reading one of the articles to similar information that they will very likely be interested in, and is a useful reference for learning about, and comparing, the different possible kinds of explosions. It also makes for easy navigation. --Kizor 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the template does, without direct humour, connect a series of related articles. It could be, however, improved: it desperately needs stratification with the reasons that any particular organism explodes, and the image is silly. As is, I can see why this was nominated for deletion. I can help rework this to make it more clear, stratified, and therefore, unfortunately, somewhat less amusing. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - as per Nihiltres - 52 Pickup 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change image. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and of course improve. Amusing, useful, and most importantly expressive of Wikipedia's uniqueness. -- Visviva 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the image is silly, why not just change it and be done with it? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:15, 21 May 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:Factbooklink edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author's request. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for links to the CIA Factbook. However another t/p that does the same thing lives at Template:CIA World Factbook link. Since the last t/p was here before mine, I request mine to be deleted. — - Thanks, Hoshie 01:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates have their merits. But the good thing about templates is that they're mass-customizable, so may as well narrow these two down to one :) Perhaps this can be deleted via WP:CSD#G7; thanks for nominating your template, Hoshie. Gracenotes^T § 04:07, 19 May 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.