Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10

Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel

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 speedy delete per author request. JamieS93 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete While there is a good chance the parent article will be retained at this AfD, there is little chance that all these individual ex-"villages" will be notable in their own right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If even a small number of the ex-villages are notable the template will be handy. And if not, no real damage. Richmondian (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep i vote keep. it not good faith to try to delete when editor know article probably keep. Ani medjool (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am trying to act in good faith. I just voted to keep the article. But every article does not a template merit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I'm a little new to templates here. Is there a way to reproduce some body of wikitext without putting it into a template? Or is that the only way mediawiki does things? Richmondian (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert myself, sorry. But as far as I can see, the only other way to group this info would be a category, which given the small size, probably would be deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like just because its a template doesn't raise its importance, it is just helpful for making an element that might appear on > 1 page? It looks nice and compact, I've seen articles with some really unweildy lists on them. Richmondian (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication has been forthcoming so far that any of these villages are notable and will ever have their own article. Per our guidelines navboxes are for navigation, not for permanent redlinks. There are articles on the two towns, and we can easily put the article List of pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Height in the see also section. Pantherskin (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. If pages are ever made for these villages, which I doubt will happen, categories will suffice. Chesdovi (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is POV, OR, unsourced, and appears to be partly fabricated.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apologies for the changing around, but really there isn't much point to this that is not served by the list, especially when most of the articles don't exist. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep template is connected to article, and I will expand it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's too connected to the article. It's merely a snazy, unwarranted duplication. If you want to work on it, consider creating a sandbox version. Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pantherskin. The list is better-suited to the same purpose, the template doesn't allow for sources (which would probably be necessary, given the contentious nature of the topic). Huon (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whaw, this is like "deja vu" all over again. When, finally (?) we have managed to keep template + list of Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948, we get the same arguments for deletion (from some of the same editors) about this template. Whatever; this *is* a most notable subject, whether you like it or not. To complain about lots of red links when the template is just made, is really not fair. It´s a work in progress, (except that some obviously don´t want it to be any progress in this area on wp.) And a template is much better than a list to navigate by. (I know: I "live" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War on wp myself) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is little coverage of this topic in reliable sources, and no evidence that the villages are notable or need separate articles. The template appears to be an attempt to extend the battleground of the Arab-Israeli conflict on to Wikipedia using an advocacy organization (BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights) as the sole source for this list, a list which the unreliable source itself refers to as "a list of the abandoned villages in the Golan Heights area which have been declared as closed areas by Order no. 39", not as "towns and villages destroyed by Israel". The lead section makes this clear: "Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the area during the conflict. An armistice line was established and the region came under Israeli military control." Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abent notability of any given village, this is a red-link haven. It also, however, hits into an area which has been the topic of ArbCom rulings concerning trying, in some small way, to keep clear advocacy out of any articles regarding that geographical area. (Note: no actual geographical terms were killed in the phrasing of that sentence). Collect (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for any political reason or because of lack of reliable sources (which is really more an issue for the articles than for a navigation template), but because there aren't enough existing articles linked in this for a useful navbox. It is almost entirely redlinks. This makes it very different from a template like {{Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War}}, which has dozens of existing articles linked. No objection to reviving it later if/when more of the articles are created. --RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and sources have not been verified. Nice redlink farm. Shlomke (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—most of the localities on the list are not villages, but farms and such. Even if someone managed to create an article on each of them, they'd be deleted for being non-notable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Red link farm... navboxesshould link articles that actually exist. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for it, since almost none of the links work. If a substantial number of the links become articles, then it would be reasonable to put back. That's unlikely. In the meantime, it should be no hardship for whoever produced it to keep a copy handy in their own user space. But having it as a template is effectively just a way to give a large list of otherwise unusable names, in a place where they don't add anything to the article. It just makes the article look even more like WP:POINT. I'm sympathetic to having the articles in at least some cases; but not if they comes across as WP:POINT. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up the template, remove it! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a speedy deletion tag on it accordingly, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (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:Deleter

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary labeling template which would only lead to further division if used in discussions. Regards So Why 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Template was created to make a point in an AfD debate. Bielle (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, a deletionist wants to delete this?

Keep: helps inform discussion. if a user just wants to delete anything and everything, his/her opinion on a particular deletion is a little less informative. Alternative: disallow any labeling templates from deletion debates? Richmondian (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems WP:POINTy. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unfortunate enough that some people self-identify with such labels, but at least that is their choice. For a third party to place "deletionist" or "inclusionist" labels on people during a discussion is counterproductive and should not be facilitated with templates. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is simply not conducive to the actual purpose of AfD, which is to debate the article rather than the participants in the discussion. {{SPA}} has a reasonable purpose; this does not. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Too cute. ~YellowFives 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) {{Deleter|YellowFives}}[reply]
Delete as serving no purpose whatsoever. I don't even dare ask if an analogous inclusionist template exists, though I hope that's not the case. Huon (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a close call. By the way, there are templates for self-described inclusionists. [1] inter alia. Collect (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:AGF 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{deleter|76.66.197.2}}
Delete. Plainly disruptive and encouraging people to ignore the assumption of good faith. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disruptive and pointy. GlassCobra 00:20, 17 November 2009 (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:USRep succession box

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USRep succession box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's an unused redirect. All transclusions have been replaced by direct calls. Bazj (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems logical. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was visited 70 times in all in the first ten months of 2009 (that's 304 days) according to this tool, and that includes any residual use that may have existed in this time period and of which no trace remains, as well as multiple visits by the same people, etc. Waltham, The Duke of 04:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no objection to deleting this, but deletions of redirects, even template redirects, are normally discussed at WP:Redirects for Discussion instead of here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point... This applies to all redirects, including templates. Can we have this transferred somehow, or must we declare a mistrial? Waltham, The Duke of 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's OK to move the entire conversation to RfD, with a comment that you've relocated it to the correct venue. People's earlier !votes are still applicable because they don't depend on where the discussion was happening. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should I also leave a note here, or should no trace of our presence remain on this page? Waltham, The Duke of 04:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Since it is not being used, it should be deleted, but even the template redirected to is unnecessary, since it is really meerely a special case of a succession box, for which there is a generalised template, which can if necessary be tweeked to accomodate what is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, obsolete. GlassCobra 00:27, 17 November 2009 (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:AbortionDebate-horizontal

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AbortionDebate-horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Abortion law sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Abortion methods horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Abortion by country sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Abortion methods sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Dup to {{Abortion}}, a much more comprehensive and unobstructive footer template, which is standardized using {{Navbox}}. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. It makes perfect sense to me to aggregate these templates into a standardized navbox. Much tidier & far more maintainable - Alison ^❤ 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I have an open question on Cirt's talk page about whether sidebars or footers are preferred.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footers are preferable IMHO, as sidebars screw up the style formatting of the page, pushing text around, and location of placement often causes conflict in and of itself. The {{Navbox}} format is very widely accepted, and helps to improve standardization. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, I suggest Template:Abortion methods sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) would also be incuded in this debate.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my objection to this deletion. Severa, the user who originally created the sidebars, has retired from Wikipedia.[2] One horizontal navbox at the bottom should be easier to maintain than several sidebars.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alison. Standardized, single template is optimal. GlassCobra 00:19, 17 November 2009 (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:Mathematosis

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judging from Mathematosis, this appears to be a neologism, and a catch-all term for a huge variety of conceivable content gripes with a math article, mixed in with an accusation of arrogance. Violates WP:CIVIL, and unlikely to be used. Ray^Talk 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it is my claim that mathematosis is a very widespread problem on Wikipedia. Mathematosis in the article mainspace isn't about identifying arrogance (that will usually only be a problem on a talk page). In an article it involves mathematical jargon to the exclusion of ordinary language explanation. It is a specific form of WP:CSB which manifests itself in the wholesale deletion of material about the logical foundations of mathematical concepts like theorem and others. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. (Unlikely usage, and quite an unfriendly tag!) Also, we already have a "Cleanup-jargon" tag. --Robin (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect to {{Cleanup-jargon}} might be fun, but the placer might mean to indicate issues of style or tone. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a problem with a mathematical article, the complaint should be made more specific, and discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on how to solve it should be sufficient. Also, the term "mathematosis" is potentially divisive and should not be used in a template message. There are plenty of more specific templates that could be used instead at WP:Template_messages/Cleanup for almost any issue that this template would cover. J kasd 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using templates to automate our incivility to other editors doesn't strike me as a good idea. And GregBard (the creator of the template and the essay) should get his own house in order before he starts lecturing others – e.g. see a possibly-related ongoing discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I sympathize with the template creator, having seen many mathematics articles that do everything except explain their subject. However, this is redundant and inferior to {{cleanup-jargon}}. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, not really useful, and it appears the article will likely be deleted as well. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup tags should be based on guidelines and policies, not POV essays. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or repurpose to a userbox, as long as it applies to the template creator's user page. The article should probably be deleted, as well, but that's still under discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POINT violation by someone who believes he knows what mathematosis means. Hans Adler 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POINT. There is already a good general template without the incivility. This editor is heading towards being banned. Can't they try out Wikiversity or wikibooks instead? You don't need consensus there. A userbox like that sounds okay and the sort of thing some mathematicians might like, but not based on the associated WP:POINT essay. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The recent creation of the Wikipedia:Mathematosis essay, even as the article mathematosis itself seems doomed at AfD, would seem even more pointy. Le Docteur (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD (Miscellaneous for deletion) is the one for essays like that in wikipedia space. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might set up a 'This editor suffers from Mathematosis' userbox for myself sometime. I find some things quite difficult but I'd like to give the impression things occur to me full formed whilst I'm lying down daydreaming ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Template:Arrogant Bastard.~~ I mean, delete. Le Docteur (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think the best way to describe this template might be "ironic". Ozob (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If >THIS< isn't WP:POINT I don't know what is 71.139.9.7 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep just because a general template exists, it does not mean that more specific ones should not exist. --UltraMagnus^speak 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But this template is not a "more specific" refinement of any existing cleanup templates. In fact, it does not refer to any established Wikipedia guideline or policy. Usage in the mainspace (for which the template is clearly intended) is thoroughly inappropriate. And even if it were a more specific refinement, why does that necessarily imply a default position of "strong keep"? Le Docteur (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would be rather hard to understand when the Mathematosis article ceases to exist in its current form, as seems likely. The other cleanup templates can do anything this does, but better (without the use of, what, specialized jargon?). Huon (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all sorts of WP:AGF problems that would be caused by its use. Also, it may fall under WP:POINT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this looks unlikely to survive I have now nominated the associated essay for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mathematosis Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncivil and redundant to pre-existing template. GlassCobra 00:14, 17 November 2009 (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.