Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27 edit

Template:Infobox Family Guy Season 7 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season seven won't be for over half a year. There are countless events that could cause those episodes to be canceled, even renamed until then. TheBlazikenMaster 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even unreliable sources aren't verifying anything about S7 yet, let alone reliable rock solid ones. --linca linca 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL - Season 6 is confirmed, in production, nothing on 7th season being OK'd yet. SkierRMH 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're aren't many links on the template, compared to the other Family Guy Season infoboxes because not many have aired yet. Martin B 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong about that. "Not many have aired" is a wrong statement, in fact none at all have aired yet. TheBlazikenMaster 18:30, 2 November 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:IPhone Data Plan 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no reason for this information to be in a template as it is only used in one article. Secondly, the information contained in this template is not suitable for an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. — Paul^C/_T+ 16:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. JPG-GR 22:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and unuseful within wikipedia, especially as these details are liable to change frequently. --linca linca 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was my fault to put it up. But at least, can someone transfer whatever that template had to the article and let someone update it as soon as it changes? --AOL Alex 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:' It's not appropriate for information of this kind to be included on Wikipedia, irrespective of being a template or not. Being a template conflates the matter. The information needs to be removed. If it's appropriate and encyclopedic, you may link to an online resource that indicates these figures, but in no way should pricing be listed. You don't see prices for TVs comparing different stores do you? The reason is it's inappropriate to be discussing price at all. You may, in exceptional circumstances, advise what the phone plans offered are, but only in a matter of encyclopedic prose. So, no, this is Not done. --linca linca 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM & Not Sales. SkierRMH 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into iPhone - This is relevant, notable, and well-researched information about the iPhone data plan. 198.88.216.101 17:15, 2 November 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:Geolocation 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently obsolete and no longer used anywhere. The Anome 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless when obsolete. --linca linca 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & superceded by {{coor}}. SkierRMH 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and superceded. (SEWilco 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete unused with no future. MurphiaMan 12:46, 3 November 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.

NFL Pro Bowl 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 to keep. Valid concept for a navbox, and having to add a few lines of code in the far future is not obtrusive. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are redundant with the roster sections of 2007 Pro Bowl. If allowed to proliferate, the end of the Bruce Matthews article would be quite obtrusive (to say nothing about the All-star equivalents for basketball or baseball).

Delete as nominator. Neier 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. They are for player pages. And they only including the starters which is not the same as the roster sections of the Pro Bowl articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy way to figure out which players went to the 2007 Pro Bowl, actually all years should have a template like this--Yankees10 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak merge) Is it essential to have both separately? They're not so large that they'd impose? I'm sorry, I'm not that familiar with NFL, so maybe that's a silly suggestion. Navigational template are imperative with closely linked short or stub articles that couldn't be merged (such as these). --linca linca 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually on second thought, this might be a bad idea. Neier is right - what if a guy has been to 15 Pro Bowls and eventually templates exist for those? The bottom of his page would be taken over by these. This might be a bad idea.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that I think of it, Chris is right, what if they did make like 15 Pro Bowl's, the bottom of the page would look terrible--Yankees10 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– I actually like this idea. In the case that a player makes it to 15 Pro Bowls or something like that, then the whole achievements section (all those extra templates) can all be condensed into a collapseable box. Ksy92003(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would that work?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when Jmfangio was still around? Whenever he wanted to shrink the size taken up by discussions, he would add something to condense the conversation. If this was necessary, I would add the following:

<div class="NavFrame">
<div class="NavHead" ">Pro Bowl starters</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">
{{2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters}}
{{2007 Pro Bowl NFC starters}}
}}

...which would produce this:

Pro Bowl starters

If you click on "hide" on the purple bar, then the whole thing would be condensed, and then you could un-condense it at will, if you don't want to see all of them. Ksy92003(talk) 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant when I suggested a merge, to embed both into a collapsible table. 15 collapsible tables wouldn't look that bad, but would look impressive, and rightly so if one person participates in 15, consecutively or not. --linca linca 01:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to a merge because if there was a merge, then every single time the template is added, there would have the NFC starters for an AFC player and vice-versa, and that means that every single time the templates are added to a player's page, half of the templates would be unnecessary and extra space. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's what they meant. I don't think they meant merge the AFC and NFC templates (bad idea). I think they just meant put them in a collapsible box.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I misunderstood then. No problem with putting all of these individual templates in a collapsable box, but I'd oppose a merger of the two individual 2007 templates into the same template. Ksy92003(talk) 00:32, 30 October 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:Superheroboxneeded 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template can be replicated by adding infobox=yes to the {{Comicsproj}} template placed on the talk page. Since we should minimise template use in the article namespace, I suggest we delete this template to encourage the talk page usage. — Hiding Talk 08:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really required at all, and the talk page notice suffices. ~ Sebi 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If used appropriately (that is, in the talk page) it could be ok, as it gives the direct links to the appropriate infoboxes, whereas using infobox=yes doesn't. That said, it's presently not being used in the talk space, but in the mainspace, and I think that makes the appearance rather disruptive, and it doesn't use ambox (though that's not much of an issue). --linca linca 14:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree w/ nom - a simple infobox=yes would suffice in the comicsproj template. SkierRMH 02:52, 29 October 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:Nintendo Brain series‎ 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(C-Town) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template full of very loosely-associated topics. The title alone is WP:NOR: I don't believe any reliable source as ever referred to Brain Age and Big Brain Academy as "Nintendo's Brain series," though I'm sure they have compared them to each other in reviews, as is natural since both are brain training games. Furthermore, if this were to be split, it would just be a complicated "see also" – two games does not make a series. It takes three. — hbdragon88 07:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not definitely related, and a split would make it ridiculously small. Note: it's not Original Research for Wikipedia to name a definitive collective that's not otherwise named. this, however, is NOT a definite collective, simply a few items bearing similarity on the same platform, and THAT's OR. It would, however, be appropriate to have a template like this for all Touch! Generations games and these games could be listed together as "Intellectual stimulus" (or something of the like), if the template separates different categories of the "Touch!" games. I'm not going to create it, but it's a suggestion for this template's creator/s when this one's deleted. --lincalinca 15:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who nominated the Touch! Generations template for deletion as well. hbdragon88 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If not just a bit longer, at least until Nintendo releases a non speculative name for the collection of these games. As of this post, there are 4 games in the template. Crad0010 16:50, 6 November 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:Dominionism 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, default to keep. This template must however be monitored as BLP concerns are possible. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many reasons to delete: (1) This template is unavoidably a POV magnet. (2) It forces an unmerited binary categorization onto what is a complex and nuanced issue. (3) It raises massive WP:BLP concerns especially as applied to individuals and groups. — Raymond Arritt 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This infobox conflates multiple definitions of the same term, as detailed in Dominionism#Origin and usage of the term and Dominionism#Identifying dominionists and here, thus grouping together mainstream figures and fringe figures in a fashion that feels a lot like guilt by association. The fringe figures (who make up more than half of the infobox) are not notable enough to have an infobox at all, while the others could be grouped under a less contentious term. --BlueMoonlet 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template has been used as an ideological weapon to label people as "dominionists" based on extremely POV sources, associating fringe nutcases with mainstream Christian right leaders, with no opportunity to provide balance. Misbehavior by users and admins was rampant (less so now that certain of them have stopped editing the template). - Merzbow 04:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Continued BLP concerns which were addressed during the prior TfD but seem to have been ignored by those actually involved in the maintenance of this template. This template follows rules for inclusion not based, and ignoring, policy and guidelines of Wikipedia but rather those listed in the main Dominionism article. Kyaa the Catlord 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete The concerns raised are true. I see there being a need for the template, but in its present form it has to go as it is not compliant with WP:BLP. Another reason it's a weak delete is the arguments raise 18 months ago when it last went up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Dominionism). I'm almost straddling the line on weak keep, because there's a lot of reasons to keep a template like this, but it really needs a lot of work to be able to comply with policy. --linca linca 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV magnet for BLP violations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The topic is given undue weight by having this template inserted into all the articles it references. This is a minority leftist conspiracy theory, and particularly in the template form, it confuses too many issues, with no opportunity to qualify the claims. Frjohnwhiteford 12:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does Islamophobia have a template? Does Christofacsist? Does Chauvinism? Does (insert political pejorative slang term of choice)? Revolutionaryluddite 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this response, which I hadn't before, I'm moving from a weak delete to a regular delete. The template really is unnecessary and unnecessarily conflates the importance of Dominionism for the subjects on the pages it's presently listed.
Weak keep, by removing valid BLP concerns. The BLP applies to groups? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The infobox's usefulness (such as it ever was) is dramatically decreased without the individuals that were listed until 27 October (former state here). Furthermore, BLP is not the only reason for deletion. --BlueMoonlet 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason which remains. If you remove individuals POV and Binary concerns are minimized; a reliable source (and or self labeling) is all you need for a group to be labeled Dom. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the individuals (and organizations, per CBM), then there's practically nothing left and the template is useless. Furthermore, there are still the undue weight and conflation issues. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a navigational tool which is amenable to sourcing, but police rigorously to avoid WP:BLP issues. Many white supremacists assert they are not racist, that does not make it so. Dominionism is real, verifiable and significant, and linking the articles with a navbox is defensible even if it has not always been done entirely appropriately here. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but remove anything that needs a source. The template should only be used for navigation, not for content. Limit the headings to 'Ideas', 'People', and 'Related topics', for example. If this turns out not to be possible in practice, then it will have to be deleted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undue weight and conflation of various meanings into a single term. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If what you want is a navigational tool, wouldn't it be much more useful and general (not to mention free of controversy) to make a Template:Christian Right? That would involve removing about three-quarters of the content of this infobox, and adding a whole bunch more, and you might as well start from scratch. --BlueMoonlet 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A general Christian right template might be interesting/useful. However, I don't see why we might not have two separate templates for them. JoshuaZ 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this infobox is a quagmire of conflated definitions. One (arguably the most common) is to refer to a fringe group that is not notable enough to be in an infobox in the first place. It is true that some scholars use the term with a different meaning, but for the most part they speak generally and don't call out individual people or organizations. With only one exception, all cited identifications of non-fringe figures as Dominionist is in the context of a partisan polemic. And even the one exception is debatable enough that it shouldn't be uncritically reported as fact (which is what an infobox does by its nature). --BlueMoonlet 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you mean conflated? Jim62sch 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mixing things together that should be kept separate. --BlueMoonlet 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, move individuals to a separate list. That will solve the BLP issues since we can include the sources in the list. Then we just add a link to the list from the template. That should solve most concerns. JoshuaZ 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Ok, per CBM and Bluemoon's comments I need to think about this a bit more. Abstaining for now. JoshuaZ 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Would this "separate list" be an article or an infobox? --BlueMoonlet 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you mean is an article containing a list of "People identified as Dominionist" or the like, this already exists at Dominionism#Identifying dominionists. This could be reformatted as a bulleted list and serve as a nav tool. But then what is the use of the template? Why not !vote delete? The people are the real meat of it. --BlueMoonlet 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move individuals to a list -- the list would be a list (or cat). Either option is fine. Jim62sch 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move individuals to a list. This removes the BLP problems from the template.--Filll 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are the "keep, but move individuals" votes votes to delete the template and move the contents to a list, or are they votes to truncate the template and then create a seperate list? Revolutionaryluddite 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last time issues came up with this template, I suggested just removing the people, or something similar. Someone pointed out to me that some of the organizations listed are closely related with particular individuals, to the point where accusing te organization of being dominionist is not much different from accusing the person. So I am not sure that removing just the people but leaving the organizations will resolve all the BLP issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove individuals to a list where proper sources can be provided. FeloniousMonk 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the BLP issues it also seems to me that Dominionism itself is not such an important subject that it needs its own template. Steve Dufour 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see the problem here, seems like any philosophy could qualify for a template if linking stuff together. I don't really see any BLP issues, but obviously your not going to slap a "Christianity" temlate on MLK, your going to slap a civil rights template on him. Similarly your not going to slap a Dominionism template on George Bush. You can maybe put a Christianity template on a pope and a Dominionism template on one of it's core "philosophers". Seems pretty self explanitory. What wikipedia really needs it more agressive purging of silly templates from BLP articles. But those same templates can quite reasonably link together tightly related philosophical ideas & fairly dedicated organizations. Just make people use some common sence. JeffBurdges 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it goes without saying that any individuals listed in the template itself better be pretty major figured within the Dominionism philosophy, not just people who happen to subscribe to it. JeffBurdges 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are so few people who say that they are Dominionists. Why is a template needed at all? Steve Dufour 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I have serious concerns about this template, and was ready to support deletion; then I noticed that Category:Dominionism exists. What problem, exactly, does this template have that that category does not have? It's obviously difficult to precisely define Dominionism or who is a Dominionist, but if we can do so in a sufficiently neutral and verifiable way for a category, then we can do so for a template as well. Terraxos 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the template is deleted, presumably the category will be trimmed. The mere existence of the category is not a reason to keep this template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The prominence given to this template on biographical articles about people who themselves deny such a controversial label is, on its face, blatant POV and WP:UNDUE. We should drop the template outright and instead describe the allegations of "Dominionism" in a person's biography following customary Wikipedia guidelines for addressing controversial issues in an article. JGHowes ^talk - 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly rescope or mildly delete I am not really sure about arguments such as "Many white supremacists assert they are not racist, that does not make it so. Dominionism is real, verifiable and significant." I agree with the facts the argument lists but not that this analogy demonstrates a clear reason to preserve the template, particularly in its current form. I don't think we'd have a racism navbox full of names of people the navbox alleges to be racists, especially if they claimed not to be. If any were alive, it would get a BLP slap. There'd likely be creep - any number of individuals from the race and IQ debate would get listed. There are writers who claim Abe Lincoln held opinions that were by modern standards racist, even though he was enlightened by the standards of his day. George W. Bush is not known for gleefully torturing black children, but his Katrina response has led to some people calling him racist. We could find reliable secondary sources for that! I think fundamentally that's why we wouldn't have a "notable racists" navbox - when considering individuals names and groups (which in the case of one-man-bands is near-enough the same thing) for inclusion on a navbox, sourcing is not enough - a subjective choice needs to be made. A sensible subjective choice (one that would hopefully be supported by consensus among sane and reasonable users) would be that Abe Lincoln need not feature in a "notable racists" navbox. Unfortunately, fringe and controversial subjects attract fringe, controversial or opinionated users. Consensus can be hard to reach, which is why Wikipedia's sourcing policies become vital. Discussion may descend into source-warring ("I have 3 sources for my assertion, you can only find 2!" "Ah, but two of yours aren't WP:RS compliant!") - and to make things worse, sources in such areas also tend to be fringe, controversial or opinionated. A nightmare on articles, a brick wall when you're trying to make "reasonable" subjective judgements. "Reasonable" is the best you can hope for, because of the nature of the judgement it's impossible for the judgement to be "accurate". What are the criteria to be listed in an "X-ism" navbox? Self-declared X-ist? (As Guy wisely pointed out, that's bad, many X-ists will say they're "really" Y-ists.) Convicted of X-ism? (Even if X-ism is a crime, this fails for similar reasons.) Widely considered by mainstream academics to be X-ist? (When your criteria are weasel-worded, you know you're in trouble. Also more difficult and ambiguous to source than the others - especially if this is a fringe or controversial area lacking mainstream academic attention!) Accused or alleged of X-ism? (Even if this didn't bring up a host of BLP, neutrality and undue weight issues...just how notable/non-goofball/neutral does the accuser have to be?) To make things worse, we largely either link, or we don't. It's rare for an entry in a navbox to be qualified with a "maybe", an "allegedly", or a "widely considered to be" (it happens sometimes though: {{Countries of Asia}}). We certainly don't put in an "according to", a reference link, and a source. Several things make Dominionism even more tricky to deal with. As Guy pointed out, it's not just some crazy left-wing conspiracy theory. But while for some people it's a proud label, for others it's largely an attack phrase. Some commentators have argued that only a small, relatively specific movement deserves the term, which other analysts and commentators have broadly overapplied to the Christian Right. Not only does the word "Dominionist" vary from an insult to a personal interpretation of an avowed ideology, it also lacks a clear definition - as has been argued above, the navbox has certainly been conflating several meanings without making clear distinctions between them. Perhaps the best idea is to restrict the navbox to the "core topics" of Dominionism (it's a notable movement with a string of interlinked articles, so the idea of a navbox is hardly heretical!) but I'm unsure how tightly to define "core topics". Probably by leaning towards "Big Picture" articles rather than individuals and groups, but bearing in mind that Luther should logically appear on a Lutheranism navbox, it's never quite that simple.TheGrappler 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the basic function of the template is completely valid : link together the philosophers, philosophical terms, and practicing organizations.

Where are the BLP issues really? I've not found any transcluded people for whome Dominionism seems like less than "their main shtick"? I suspect the real questions are just about it's name. So I'd like to point out :

We're not talking about some term invented by left wing academics to attack the religious right. Christian reconstructionism itself invented & uses the word Dominionism. So aplication of the term is correct for almost all Christian reconstructionists, which is pretty much everyone we're talking about wrt BLP issues. We're presumably applyng the term to dead philosophers exactly how Christian reconstructionists apply it, which is valid since those are the philosophers who had a concerted influence upon them.

Anyway I just don't see the objections, you mustn't just stick a philosophy template on anyone who says supporting things once, they need to say them repeatedly, consistantly, and articulately enough to influence others. No one who meets those criteria will object to either the Christian reconstructionists or Wikipedia saying that their a Dominionist. At most, they'll accept the broad title but object to being attached to some specific doctrinal aspects of Christian reconstructionism. But I imagine these people are exactly why we've a template for Dominionism but not Christian reconstructionism. And perhaps partially why the Christian reconstructionists inented the term. JeffBurdges 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see the main problem here : Someone listed older influences a if their the main philosophers. For example Francis Schaeffer is listed but isn't a dominionist, while Rushdoony isn't listed at all. Well, this seems easy to fix. Here's a pretty good section of the dominionism article on which the template can be based. JeffBurdges 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I think you misunderstand the point. The CRs are not the problem (except that their notability is so marginal that they probably shouldn't be in an infobox at all). The problem is mainstream figures who reject the term Dominionist but have been listed here because the name has been applied to them by (almost exclusively) partisan polemicists. If you keep the mainstream figures, then the infobox has BLP issues (not to mention undue weight, conflation of multiple definitions of the term, and weasel words in the headings) and should be deleted; if you remove them, then the infobox imparts no useful information and should be deleted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Guy's aargument. Just because they won't go on record as 'i am an X' doesn't mean they aren't. Hitler never called himself a racist, he was a nationalist who wanted to fix Germany; in his mind, killing millions of 'inferior non-germans' was simply the way he achieved it. Showing up at a 'Reclaiming America for Christ' conference and giving and hearing speech after speech about why America should adopt the New Testament as it's singular source of law and so on is the same thing. ThuranX 12:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strong consensus among reliable scholars agrees that Hitler was a racist. It is a claim of consensus that satisfies the criterion. There is no such consensus among non-partisan scholars in this case. "[A]dopt[ing] the New Testament as its singular source of law" is the purview of the fringe, not something that any mainstream figure under discussion here has said. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above arguments, but remove the list of individuals. Avador 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JzG as a navigational tool which is amenable to sourcing. Yamaguchi先生 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I've already voted (above) to delete, so this is not a 2nd vote, but instead is to ask those who wish to keep this Category template to reconsider the two main objections, namely the size and placement of the template itself, as well as the suitability of a religion template contrary toWP:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people.

With regard to the first objection, this template takes up fully one-fourth of the right side of my older 800x600 CRT monitor screen, just below the Article Lead. Why such unusually oversized prominence? If such a template is needed at all, why not format it horizontally instead of vertically, and place it at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section, as is common practice? Or better yet, relegate it to the article Talk page as a Project template?

Secondly, it would seem that applying such a template to a biography should observe the accepted convention pertaining to WP:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people, which says, in part: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable sources"

Thus, unless the biographee has actually stated, "I am a Dominionist" and the quotation is reliably sourced, how can this template be considered compliant? JGHowes ^talk - 00:27, 7 November 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:Lima district table 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template replaced by {{Infobox District Peru}}. Victor12 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated and inaccurate terminology included ("ciudad" doesn't apply in all cases). --linca linca 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprecated. (SEWilco 17:19, 29 October 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:Bond eras 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant. There already exists a template that serves the exact same purpose {{Bond movies}}. — _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template adds unnecessary clutter to the Bond movies articles. --Victor12 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant to {{bond movies}}. Any useful articles relating to James Bond should be linked to that template; it's better to have one template linking to everything, then have multiple templates linking to only portions. ~ Sebi 09:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but update {{Bond movies}} to incorporate the actors, as it's something of an oversight excluding them. And even include the bond girls in there too... but that's mroe to do with updating the other template. This one has useful info, but is duplicious. --linca linca 14:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it would be nice to see the {{Bond movies}} adding this info on the actors. SkierRMH 02:16, 29 October 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:Owner 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template namespace is an inappropriate place to be indulging a penchant for parody/satire/humour. Hesperian 12:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amusing, but potentially will be used nastily, and really, not essential. --linca linca 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a huge violation of WP:OWN. TheBlazikenMaster 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the last comment... you don't seem to understand humour my friend; obviously its a violation of WP:OWN, that's the whole point. If anyone actually used this it would be fairly clear that it was not a real template (the picture of Joseph Stalin is a bit of a give away), and removed as vandalism. That's the whole point of the humour banner... You might want to delete Template:Templater as well though if you must delete this, by the reasoning given in the nom. It would be a shame to see it go though (I've used it on the nominator for not getting my permission to nominate this, but rather placing a template on my page. Hopefully the compound irony is not lost on you). Richard001 04:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you ignore TBM's comment, which is correct, it's still inappropriate to have something like this as it's misleading. I find it quite funny, personally, but potentially, people will use it as a way of saying "take this, dickhead" to people they don't like, which is obviously an issue with WP:CIVILITY. Maybe try it over at Uncyclopedia. --linca linca 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I do have a sense of humor. That's what I go to YouTube for. But not here as it's a serious encyclopedia. TheBlazikenMaster 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A box at the top saying This Is A Joke shouldn't give carte blanche to make offensive comments because there is a good chance that the recipient will just see it as an attack. The thumbnail of Stalin isn't a giveaway to people with a different cultural view or who simply don't know what Stalin looked like. Perhaps they would see it as saying "brutal dictator who made anyone who crossed him suffer". It violates WP:CIVILITY - never mind WP:OWN. Even if a recipient does understand it, it is likely to have a chilling effect on them making future edits to the article in question. Jll 12:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness to Richard, I don't think this template was ever intended to be used. It is just supposed to sit there and be funny. Hesperian 12:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it was intended to be used once, on the talk page, to enhance the comic effect. I know of no way to prevent it being used in the article namespace, though the user would be somewhat deprecating themselves by doing so. It would probably cause a similar hysteria if created at Uncyclopedia anyway, so I guess it will have to be deleted. Richard001 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Templates are so you can use them twice or more. I suggest that you subst it on the only place you were gonna use it. Templates are unnecessary if they're only used once. TheBlazikenMaster 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop it from being used, whatever the author's intention. He should put it on Uncyclopedia, where it can still be funny without any risk of causing harm. Jll 13:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments entirely. I think it's quite funny, but of course, in Uncyclopedia, you'd have to have Oscar Wilde or Kanye West as your poster boy. --linca linca 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't need to be a template. Until Jimbo chooses to delete 20 million articles, then his picture will be appropriate. (SEWilco 17:23, 29 October 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.