Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17 edit

Template:NicktoonChar 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NicktoonChar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only once. It can be substituted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 00:48, 18 November 2008 (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:Companions 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Companions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still unused nearly on year after creation. Icewedge (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was used after it was created but the image map that it served up was made up fair use images and the image got deleted so it was no longer used. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 12:12, 18 November 2008 (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:CSversionhistory 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSversionhistory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and excessive information. DP76764 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the discussion on the talk page about this. This essentially constitutes game guidey information. The major portions of the template are already located in prose (if poor prose) on Counter-Strike. --Izno (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (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:PD-stamp 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete.Garion96 (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-stamp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are no special copyright rules for stamps in most countries. This template wrongly gives the impression that stamps are somehow PD by virtue of being stamps, which is only rarely true. The template appears to be used on only 42 images, so it shouldn't take too long to cleanup. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Calliopejen said above, the template is quite misleading. Wizardman 00:41, 30 November 2008 (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:The Psychic Paramount 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Psychic Paramount (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two pages are linked from this template making it totally unnecessary. Dancarney (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't care that much either way, but wouldn't it make more sense to blueify the redlinks instead? Murderbike (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - basically, this is going the wrong way around; the articles should be created first, then the navigational template. Templates full of red links (like this one) should be avoided. Terraxos (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2008 (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:BillDavisRacing 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BillDavisRacing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template.All articles can be accessed from the main article, organization is too small to need a template. D-Day (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - doesn't seem necessary as a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All articles in template link back to each other. No need for separate template. D-Day (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for template, all content was redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:19, 29 November 2008 (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:Movietome 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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedily kept as nomination was withdrawn. NAC. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movietome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't seem to work at all and it really doesn't seem to fulfill any purpose that already isn't fulfill by the IMDB template. Naufana : talk 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create documentation. Wow, I forgot this template even existed to be honest. The fact that it doesn't work is easily explainable by the fact that no one has updated the code since 2005. However, to imply that this doesn't serve a purpose not already served by the IMDB template is to imply that IMDB and MovieTome are the same site. They are not. MovieTome is a site owned by CNET, the same people who do TV.com. The issue with it working is now fixed on all pages that use the template and documentation will be created soon enough. Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm can I Rescind a nomination? My fault... Great job Redfarmer. Naufana : talk 15:15, 17 November 2008 (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:Romeo notice 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Both sides of the discussion make compelling arguments; I find myself unable to justify either a "keep" or "delete." I must say, however, this is one of the most unusual templates I've been asked to consider. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romeo notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think we shouldn't use editnotices in order to dissuade vandalism, as it's likely to be counter productive, and could be used on too many pages for little if no benefit, while it disturbs other editors. It was derived from a comment on pages related to beauty, but most of them have received 'normal' levels of vandalism and none has received so much vandalism or disruption to the point of needing an editnotice. As an aside, it also looks flashy and unprofessional. (see also this discussion) Cenarium ^Talk 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trying to talk to vandals, or in this case foolish users, through editnotices seems like a waste of effort, and will only add to the "noise level" for the other editors. Thus is a bad thing. --David Göthberg (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I imagine this notice attracts more vandals than it dissuades. Icewedge (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

This is not a new message. It's been directly in the text of most of the effected articles for the better part of a year now. Edit notices gave a new, more effective, way of expressing the message, but the message itself has been functioning for quite a while now. To judge it's effectiveness now verses when it was directly in the page is not a good comparison. The real comparison would be how many of this type of vandalism did the pages get before the in-line notice verses now.
This is not aimed at your typical vandal, but rather at a specific type of vandal that has plagued these pages for a long time. The casual romeo who gets it into his head to impress his SO with a Wikipedia comment about them. And it is targeted directly at this type of editor, and is worded carefully to appeal to them, not your more normal type of vandal.
It's not specifically on beauty pages, but on pages associated with romance, relationships, and generally the targets of romeo vandals. This happens to include some beauty pages, but is by no means targeted at such pages specifically.
I'm not sure what threshold is intended with "too many pages". It's on 18 pages, and could maybe go on 2-4 more. That's about it's limit. So what is "too many"?
Too flashy is reason for modifying the template, not deleting it.
As this is not so much a debate about a template, but rather is a debate about the appropriateness of the edit comment itself, template or not, I'm going to leave notices on the talk pages of the effected pages, to get the input from those who are directly effected by this debate. I hope this is not considered WP:CANVASing, as I could be as easily bringing in editors who hate the notices as those who like them. But one way or another, the outcome of this debate is effecting those pages, and IMHO the regular editors of those pages should be aware of it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Modify As a regular editor of Physical attractiveness, I will attest to the specialized vandalism we get (e.g. "SARA LIPKIN IS TEH HOTTEST ATTRACTVENESS EVAR!").--Loodog (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to something conveying, "Yes, we get this all the time, you're not original."--Loodog (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is only seen after you press the edit button, so it doesn't attract vandals but instead stops some of them. ☺ Spiby ☻ 11:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rework — saying "hey look, we get this a lot, don't bother" is one thing. This template is another. With white text on red, all caps, and references to an ancient English play, this template needs some reworking. I suggest the following:
1. Lose all the cultural references. We can't assume that everyone will get the reference to the play, and its use in calling these people "Romeos" comes across as particularly colloquial—which it is. This should ideally include moving the notice to a better title.
2. Tone down the colour and emphasis. I find warnings which are written in ALL CAPS, in bold white-on-red text like this, to be much less easy to read than a simple bold red title, and the latter will probably capture nearly as much attention. It also, as Cenarium mentions, looks unprofessional.
3. Downplay the "vandalism" element. Would-be "Romeos" don't care if it's vandalism: their goal is to get their message across. Instead, emphasize what's in their interest—that the message will probably not last long enough to be seen by their beloved.
4. Keep the "Why not send flowers instead?", as that's a great line. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, defaulting to delete Have the articles using this template actually received less "romance vandalism" after using this notice than they did before it (or any in-article notice) was there? If there's no conclusive evidence either way, I think we should delete it.

Closing admin If my question isn't answered sufficiently, my view should be taken as delete. Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. There's no harm in trying something different to dissuade this particular type of vandalism. The idea that it attracts vandalism when it only appears after the edit button has been pressed seems unconvincing to me. I would love to see some attempt to get details on how effective it is though. -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment What makes this topic more deserving of an anti-vandal template than any other? Why doesn't every article on Wikipedia have one? The standard warnings and agreements that appear below the editing box should be modified if there is determined to be a need to warn vandals. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that "deserving" is the word I would have chosen but these articles appear to attract a unique type of vandalism (declarations of "love") that is driven, at least some of the time, by different motives than the more standard vandalism that occurs all over. So a message aimed at those editors might be effective at lowering the incidence of that type of vandalism. -- SiobhanHansa 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny, but silly template. If a page is genuinely a vandal magnet it should be semi-protected, at least until it settles down. Fletcher (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Semi-proection is generally only used for a high level of vandalism, not for medium or low levels of vandalism. In any case, if this template indeed reduces the instance of vandalism on unprotected pages it's used on, then I don't see any harm. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as a grazing wikifier, it surprised me, then worried me that any cleanup tweaks I might make would be instantly erased, so a little discouraging – but i put in section heads anyway... an arresting banner without doubt. As an English speaker, Romeos made its point that vandalism is a prob with the page and it is the English wiki. Better where it is... Julia Rossi (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION VANDALS! If you came here to vandalize this page, then please, please, don't do it like this! We really mean it, just don't do it this way! Hey, why do you keep stuffing beans up Romeo's nose when that's exactly what we said not to do? (Oh, by the way, delete.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the above edit has nothing to do with reality.Kairos (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this template reminds of the warning sign "Do not spit in the urinals"; like the behaviour it is focused on, this template is both unpleasant and unnecessary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin Collins --Klein zach 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and David Göthberg, see also WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS. One should doubt that avuncular admonishments like this do much to persuade hormonally overloaded teenagers who already know exactly that their plan is not "appropriate" when they click the edit button. The psychology of WP vandals is an under-researched field, and no one has presented evidence that these editnotices (or the mentioned notices in HTML comments) actually decrease this kind of vandalism - they certainly do not prevent it: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TexasAndroid's thorough justification. (but perhaps tone down the formatting a bit per Nihiltres's good suggestions) Semiprotection of these pages is not appropriate if a template can achieve almost the same goal. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know of articles subject to repeated vandalism (such as Stuff (cloth). People seem to think the article is a joke (which it is not). The vandalism gets reverted, but not in seconds. This would be a useful template in principle, but would be better reworded: not all the trash is from Romeos. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (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.