Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6 edit

Template:CTK 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 - replace instances with {{SharedIPEDU}} templates, and tag this with {{db-xfd}} when you're done. Sorry I can't take the time to do this maintenance myself. Happy‑melon 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant template for indicating shared IP address for one school. We already have Template:SharedIPEDU. Recommend deletion and substitute SharedIPEDU template on the anonymous IP talk pages that use this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to more general template. Terraxos (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we replace this template with SharedIPEDU then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 26 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:Multi-video start 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 Happy‑melon 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multi-video start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Multi-video item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Multi-video end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are throwbacks to when inserting multimedia on WP was rare and difficult. They've always had stacking issues, are complicated to use and produce icky output markup. In contrast, using simple image tags (with the frame or thumbnail attribute if a caption is required) is solidly-tested, doesn't have layout issues and produces clean markup. None of these templates is used on articlespace any more.

Suggested outcome: outright deletion of {{multi-video start}} and {{multi-video end}}, and script-based replacement of the existing uses of {{multi-video item}} with a simple image tag on those talk and user pages where it still finds use - then deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Replace with better template (per suggested outcome) - unused in article namespace - obsolete to {{multi-video item}}, per nom. -Domthedude001 17:32, 6 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:WikiProject BattleTech 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! 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject BattleTech (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Member BattleTech (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The accompanying WikiProject only received two edits back in July and no one joined. These banners aren't needed since the project never got off the ground. Pagra shtak 13:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty unused and the WikiProject seems to be inactive. -Domthedude001 17:28, 6 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:Troll Films 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) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Troll Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do not quite understand this template since as the Troll (film) article states, the three films listed in

the template aren't actually related. So how can it be a trilogy and what use would a navbox be? Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Troll 3 is not mentioned in both Troll and Troll 2 and they seem to be all separate works. However, the wording in Troll should be fixed, since Troll 2 did try to link back to Troll. So delete it for now, but once there is more clarification on the linking of these movies and possibly some soundtracks, games and other works of Troll, the template can be added back. -Domthedude001 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as having a navbox listing unrelated items does not make sense. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:37, 6 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:User en-gb-5 edit

en-GB
-5

This user can contribute at a professional level of British English.

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 keep --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-gb-5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While generally userboxes seem to be useful or friendly information about a user's desires or capabilities, this one is deliberately offensive to Americans. It has no place in a civil environment. WP:CIVIL tells us to avoid rudeness, insults, and judgmental tones. While users can be forgiven for violating those rules in the heat of the moment, there is no reason to enshrine those inappropriate sentiments in a lasting template (even if it is in userspace).

Looking at the previous nomination for deletion, we see it was initially created as a retort to an American equivalent, which has since been deleted for being divisive. I see no reason not to follow that example here.

Make no mistake, this is a nationalist insult, indicating that an entire nation's use of language is crude. That kind of attitude does nothing positive for Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have we really lost all sense of ~~humor~~ humour? -- Ned Scott 03:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying "get over it"? Just because you don't mind a nationalistic dig doesn't mean other people won't. I find it offensive. Is the right to make broadly-construed nationalistic insults (Calling the American use of language crude is just that) really so important? Is not poking fun of people because of the place of their birth or upbringing so much to ask? Wikipedia isn't the town square, where everyone needs to have their chance to speak as they will, but rather a professional environment with rules of politeness to ensure things get done. This template simply goes against that spirit. Mintrick (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is very true that many millions of Americans (and other people too) speak English in a terrible way. --Law Lord (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between "harmless expression of a nevertheless potentially controversial opinion" and "needless antagonism". This userbox is on the "harmless" side of that line. Incidentally, the elimination of American English would greatly benefit the Commonwealth's export of the letter "U", which would be extremely beneficial in this time of impending recession. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Americans are crude" isn't a controversial opinion, it's an insult. I am completely shocked by people's willingness to ignore this, as it goes so blatantly against an attitude of general camaraderie. Honestly, this is really just sickening. I think I'm done here. I'm not going to be a part of a community that sanctions nationalistic attacks like this. Mintrick (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely the template doesn't say that Americans are crude, but that the hypothetical "this user" would see the usage of American English as crude. It's a shame that there was apparently no attempt to discuss this issue or tone down the comment. It seems likely that a less problematic form of words could be found. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but IMO the current wording is deliberately meant to convey a stereotypical English condescension. See the similar {{user en-us-0}}, for instance. I can't see how that specific sentiment could be expressed without being a "nationalist attack". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First part of the sentence is an honest opinion, second part is just a bit harmless humor. No reason to delete it. -Domthedude001 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but create an equivalent opposing view template, saying "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and is likely to respond to any use of British English with "how archaic!" ~Amatulić (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! Do that. --Law Lord (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't violate WP:CIVIL, try reading humor. And as an American I don't find it insulting one bit. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that anything like humour? :-P the wub "?!" 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we've got to pretend it all sounds the same, does this mean us Brits shouldn't laugh anymore when Bush addresses his fellow Merkins?? Bazj (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Brits laugh at that too? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Belongs in WP:MfD. Louis Waweru Talk 01:49, 13 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.