Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

October 31

Template:Uw-sand/doc

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! 06:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-sand/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Documentation subpage unused since the parent template was redirected in June. Anomie ⚔ 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unusued. Tavix (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:30, 3 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:Chattanooga Malls

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! 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chattanooga Malls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly narrow template. Only navigates among three malls, all of which are already linked from Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and Delete Seems appropriate here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The existing category does this job better anyway. Terraxos (talk) 23:19, 5 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:Belk history

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! 07:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only contains three other stores, all of which are already linked from Belk. All three conversions came within a year (and they didn't even take all of the Parisian stores), so this template doesn't really serve a purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem useful as a navigational template.

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:Recently convicted

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! 07:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recently convicted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, potential BLP problems. Not to mention that rapidly changing information is something that happens all the time in court cases. They're well known for being lightning fast. :) Conti|✉ 15:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are more or less "disclaimers", and provide no useful information to the reader. At least, this template is redundant and can be replaced with a more generic one. --Kildor (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom due to the huge potential for BLP problems and misuse. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could be problems with the wording. "Recently" is not defined in the template, thus, there is no way to tell when to remove template. No real useful information contained, either. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates with this function have been incorporated into {{current}}, though I doubt this is used often enough to warrant a parameter there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another example of a needless temporal template copying the functionality of {{current}}. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:05, 3 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:Future mine

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! 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future mine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically unused (only used in one article). Conti|✉ 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are more or less "disclaimers", and provides no useful information to the reader. At least, this template is redundant and can be replaced with a more generic one. --Kildor (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom yet another totally useless disclaimer. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or modify, because it can indeed be useful knowledge to the reader, but perhaps not in template form. I have to agree, though, that the current form should be deleted. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Functionally a copy of {{future}}. Superfluous. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:07, 3 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:Recent video game

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 result --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent video game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 2 articles right now, the corresponding category has already been deleted through CfD, not needed. We don't need to inform our viewers that articles might change (at least not with a big template at the top of an article). Conti|✉ 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are more or less "disclaimers", and provides no useful information to the reader. At least, this template is redundant and can be replaced with a more generic one. --Kildor (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just stating the obvious. Warning: You may get wet when you take a shower. JBsupreme (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Also, I strongly agree we do not need to tell editors that the content might change, most content, if verified, should be accurate anyways, so its not like the content there will be removed, only enlarged. I can't see this template being used very often, nor can I see it being very useful when it is used. Readers who come here should be able to judge that it was a recently released video game by the date listed, anyways. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copy of the functionality of {{current}}. Superfluous. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Games are going to be constantly updated as they are released, and anyone who would follow X or Y article will notice the Unreleased Game template. There's no need to have a second one once the game is released. --Teancum (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hardly useful template. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:49, 3 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:In space

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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on 3 articles currently, and rather pointless anyhow. Information does not change more rapidly just because these people are in space. The three articles that use this template have not been touched in almost two weeks. Conti|✉ 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are more or less "disclaimers", and provides no useful information to the reader. At least, this template is redundant and can be replaced with a more generic one. --Kildor (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are only three people linked to this template at the moment because that's how many people are currently in space, often there are more. The template has an important function as it adds pages to Category:People currently in space that needs to be kept up to date, a task which is much easier with the use of this template. Also, information can change rapidly when an astronaut is doing an EVA for example, or during launch, docking or re-entry. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Information can change rapidly whenever something happens, that's just the nature of.. everything, really. We don't need to mention that unless it is very likely that information will change rapidly. Additionally, I don't see how this template helps in adding Category:People currently in space (which is a perfectly fine category, IMHO). The category can be added and removed just like any other category. This template doesn't make the task one bit easier (or harder, for what it's worth). --Conti|✉ 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Categories can be managed manually, more labor might be involved, but they can be maintained manually. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, the mentioned category relies on this tag. Hera1187 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not. Adding a category is as simple as adding a template. --Kildor (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Putting a category on is as easy as putting a template on but maintaining that cat is not as easy since it is harder to notice when incorrectly placed on a page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't get it. How is the template helping in maintaining the category? Because it's big and at the top of the article? Even if that'd be the case, that's not what such a template is for. It is for our readers, not for our editors. Anyhow, it's really no problem at all to check Category:People currently in space to see if there's anyone in that category who doesn't belong there. --Conti|✉ 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another temporal template that fails to add information that cannot be better stated in the lede of the article, and in the footnotes, indicating the recentness of the activity described. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not add any value to an article. The information that a person is currently in space should be mentioned in the article already; the category can be maintained by adding it manually; and I don't think information tends to change rapidly about people currently in space, anyway. (On the contrary in fact, if a person is currently on a space mission, we can know with a fair degree of certainty what they'll be doing for the foreseeable future.) Terraxos (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category does contribute to the usefulness of the article and adds an important category.--Bothnia (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a category is as simple as adding a template. So why do you think that the template should be kept? --Kildor (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a category at the bottom of the page isn't as visible as a template at the top of the page, Category:People currently in space could linger incorrectly on an articel for days or weeks. Since Category:People currently in space is time sensitive this would damage the relevance of the category. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But categories aren't supposed to be visible like that in the first place. Maintenance of the category will be no problem whatsoever, whether it is used through a template or not. Anyhow, this nomination is not about the category. --Conti|✉ 13:01, 7 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:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda

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! 07:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexual orientation labels, identity, and referenda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created as a content fork, over a protracted dispute at Template:Sexual orientation. I don't think it is sufficiently different from the original template to be warranted, and there are other templates - template:sexual identities for instance - which cover the remaining ground. Ludwigs2 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: This template obviously has a different attribution then Template:Sexual orientation, the current sexual orientation template has been set up to bar out not-so-common-or-traditional orientation labels that people choose to identify as, you can clearly see that on the talk page. This template i have created has to do with "sexual orientation labels", not sexual identities, which Ludwigs2 is trying to associate it with, those are two completely separate things, and Ludwigs2 should clearly know that, being a major contributer to the sexual orientation related content. Sexual identity has it own very distinct article which is completely different from sexual orientation, focusing on two completely different subjects. It is shameful that Ludwigs2 has stooped so low, trying to say they are the same when i know that he can clearly tell their contrasts. If you look through the talk archives you can clearly see his many attempts to falsify and construe data to promote his views, one time going so shallow and saying that people's personal choice to label their orientation as some other than heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual "goes well beyond the current understanding of sexual orientation" [1] and that they do not deserve to be on the template. His statement is clearly false and contradicts the Sexual orientation article which states "some people may use different labels or none at all", which is a direct quote placed on the article from an source by the American Physiological Society. I believe it is wrong to discriminate equal access to be on this template which clearly tells people who label with different orientations are some how a second class citizen to traditional labels, didn't we already learn this during the civil rights movement that it is wrong to discriminate? The only options I see fit is to keep the template or remove this "ban" on Template:Sexual orientation that has been enforced by two user that appear to have a sense of article ownership and have clearly said in the past "only common oreinatation" can be used on the template. Because of their tag-team dictatorship i had to create a completely new template which does not biasly denny any sexual orientation label as Ludwigs2 has been succeeding to do on the sexual orientation template. Like i said, keep or remove this de facto ban on Template:Sexual orientation and merge it.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I second CJ's suggestion that interested editors read the sexual orientation talk page. The main discussion has been between CJ, Benjiboi and I, though other editors have been involved over the past month or so. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:POVFORK, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:Fringe. Even if written extremely well and sourced the additional articles that are featured here remain outside of the mainstream usages and understanding of sexual orientations. That could change, but one prime example, pomosexual - which has been regularly added and then removed from the main template that this is supplementing - is a borderline notable neologism which few people actually use as a self-identifier. I would place it with omnisexual or trisexual as unique and interesting terms that have never caught on to any mainstream acceptance or usage. This could change but hasn't yet. It would be more productive, IMHO, for Cooljuno411 to focus on an article about changing sexual identity labels, history, usages and implications. There are plenty of little used terms that could be nicely bundled together and be an informative and fascinating read. Creating this template and the ongoing issues at template talk:sexual orientation aren't helping in any case. I'd rather see successful building of durable content. There is a place for pomosexual et al but this isn't it. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Merge. I recognize this as entirely a FORK of Cooljuno's earlier efforts to include everything but kitchensinkophilia into the template:Sexual orientation, and being rebuffed by repeated arguments and consensus against. There is nothing here to Merge, and a Merge decision would result in everyone being forced to do the same dance yet again, an outcome I have confidence that Cooljuno would be eager to see. ThuranX (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. -- Banjeboi 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK, and redundant to existing templates. (I'm not even sure why we need separate templates for 'sexual orientation' and 'sexual identity' in the first place; those two seem very similar to one another. But we certainly don't need a third template that overlaps with both.) Terraxos (talk) 22:58, 5 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.