Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] April 4
[edit] Template:User Firefox3
Redundant template (given that there are only a limited number of free images for use in userboxes like this), and in the wrong namespace anyway. Further request salting, to prevent further copyvio use of the Mozilla Firefox image. Blast 05.04.07 0056 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant to {{User browser:Firefox logo}} {{User browser:Firefox text}} etc. Salting seems unnecessary for this particular name as a legitimate template could be created under it, and won't stop other templates from created or getting their images changed. –Pomte 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy User:Blast san/userboxes/User browser:Firefox logo is almost identical, with the exception that the link there does not point at the Firefox Homepage but Firefox's Wikipedia entry. Anyhow, to avoid toes being stubbed, let's just userfy this (sans Fair Use image of course). CharonX/talk 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Salting this template won't stop people from linking the Mozilla image on their user pages, it just means they would do it manually instead. The best way to resolve this would be to update the MediaWiki software so that images can be tagged as restricted to use in a certain namespace (or even certain specific articles). Anyway, this isn't a "copyvio," since Mozilla's license specifically allows use of this nature; it is just a violation of Wikipedia's own image use policy. 76.97.207.71 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm tired of readding the image and explaining why. — Darkest Hour 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI like having the logo in the userbox,and it Mozilla seems pretty laid back.Salting is overboardUser:Serprex 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:User Atheist2
The cross through the word God is inflammatory. Delete or change the image. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose The image specifies exactly what atheism stands for. Please do not say that it is inflammatory or in any other way attack atheism... that will start a religious debate. To the strong atheists, a cross is inflammatory. Either all religious viewpoints and corresponding userboxes should be permitted, or the other alternative is to have no userboxes at all which are based on religious beliefs. Hirak 99 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but userfy - there's a clear precedent for allowing partisan userboxes, but they should generally be kept in userspace. The user who created this userbox should move it to their userspace. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Hirak 99 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep As already said by the user above that the image states exactly what atheism is and what it stands for. Hurricane Andrew 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy per WP:UBX. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This graphic is unacceptably provocative.Proabivouac 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong userfy - seems to be a book case of userfication. If many people are strongly for deleting it (although I'm not), suggest changing image, as a compromise. GracenotesT § 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy per WP:UBX. CharonX/talk 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong userfy - WP:NOT#CENSOR. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
- Userfy image is accurate, does not suggest anti-religious attitude. –Pomte 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy; template and logo are not particularly offensive 76.97.207.71 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy, as per the strong precedent set for all controversial and partisan userboxes. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose KEEP IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
- Userfy - No reason for it to be in mainspace; no reason for it to be deleted. - Nellis 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy per Nellis. Acalamari 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - gesture to remove it is equally inflammatory Bl4h 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy, per User:Hirak_99 — Celticshk Talk 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CleanupMNSR
Ridiculously specific cleanup tag. Maintenance nightmare see also
Feasibly replace all others with cleanup-usrd, but even so the danger is that we have as many "cleanup", "wikify" etc (there are over 200) tags as we have stub tags.
Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 4 April 2007 (GMT).
- Delete all templates named above by the nominator. We really don't need a specific cleanup template for every state highway system. A cleanup template is a cleanup template. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and replace templates on linked-to pages with proper wikify/cleanup tags. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
Delete and replace with {{cleanup}}.Do not support using {{Cleanup-usrd}} as it places too much emphasis on WikiProject standards. It appears this is the only WikiProject with cleanup templates, which are unnecessary. If a project-related article needs cleanup, tag it inside the banner on the talk page. –Pomte 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)- Delete per Pomte. Suggest if project-specific templates are deemed necessary to create a generic template that accepts params for linking to state-specific roads wikiprojects instead of having multiple templates as above. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Specific project templates are not only beneficial but necessary for each WikiProject. The nomination of so many vital templates is ludicrous. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- A further point to bring up is that we originally used stubs for this purpose. Problem is, the stub people complained about teh length of articles. We try a cleanup instead, and that gets TFD'ed. That's just not right. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maintenance nightmare?! It's an nightmare if they get deleted! These templates, at least the ones seeing usage, help editors from each state see which articles need work at a glance and give a visual look at the current cleanup backlog. A nom as broad as this one, including templates with no or a couple of transclusions with ones with 30, is severely ill-advised. If you have an issue with one or a couple of the templates, make separate noms but don't make one this wide-reaching. Taking a different stroke, the generic Wikipedia cleanup templates don't work - no one ever checks those cats. A single USRD template doesn't work - who wants to comb through pages and pages of category just to find an article from Pennsylvania to clean up? Needless to say, keep all. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The USRD template could be adjusted to accept parameters that would place pages into more specific subcategories and provide project-specific instructions. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all adding onto what TMF said, the generic cleanup templates stay tagged for practically infinite periods of time! Nobody really cleans the articles up that have those cleanup templates. In fact, as TMF said, no one ever checks those cats. With our USRD templates, the pages needing to clean up are organized in separate categories, broken up by state, which makes them easier to find. Even merging every state template into the nationwide USRD cleanup template won't work, since every project has different guidelines for structuring articles. The bottom line is that using our templates greatly benefits the welfare of USRD, so that we are and continue to be a well structured WikiProject with all kinds of support and conveniences for everyone to benefit from. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep those templates are there so we can fix every article from separate state highway systems. We can't rely on one template, every state needs its own cleanup template. Besides they're way too many highway articles and you guys think we can just rely one template, I don't think so. -- J-A10 T · C 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The ratio of U.S. road articles to users interesting in improving said articles likely exceeds that of any other wiki-"project". But from my own experience I've found these editors extremely dedicated to their craft. As there are a finite number of national and state highway articles to be written, edited, and cleaned up, as opposed to a potentially infinite number of (for example) films or albums to be written about, the templates could be merged into one as there become fewer and fewer articles to clean up (rather than more and more, as would be the case when using a generic cleanup category -- they don't work worth a damn). —freak(talk) 03:04, Apr. 5, 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, a cleanup tag for every state is pushing it and most of these tags are probably unnecessary. PSUMark2006's idea above for a generic template with parameters would probably be the best solution. However, a mass TfD like this isn't the right way to go about it, it would be better to discuss this at the WikiProject discussion and carefully plan out the consolidation of these templates rather than deleting them all outright. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- [Double Edit Conflict] Keep all. It will turn into a maintenance nightmare if all of these are deleted. Also, please re-read and listen to what Rschen7754 TMF, V60, and J-A10 have to say. --myselfalso 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all: the reason we have many stub templates is so that one can find a topic of interest and get to work. Same with these. Cleanup and stub expansion are similar activities – they're more likely to get done if someone with an interest in the articles can find them easier. The smaller resultant cats are more manageable as well. —Scott5114↗ 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all These cleanup templates categorize highways by system making it very useful for editors of those specific systems to know which article need work. Most highway editors don't work on highways from *all* systems but typically on only a few. Dumping all highway articles needing cleanup in a single category would result in an overcrowded category that will make it much less useful for sorting. We can try and work on creating a generic US Roads template with parameters but until that is fully in place, these should not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have retracted my delete !vote due to the dedication - if it's practical and gets the job done relatively quickly, I have no problem with it. A concern though may be the prominence of a WikiProject in mainspace. What about transcluding or categorizing on Talk pages, or creating a new cleanup-class of articles in Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality? A simple rephrasing on {{Cleanup-usrd}} (with the subcategory parameter) may be a compromise. –Pomte 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- For example, see the train banner at Talk:Maryland Transit Administration, which has a lack of references section (categorized into the appropriate Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles) and a map needed section (the USRD template already has this part). –Pomte 06:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all per TMF, JA10, freak, rschen, V60, polaron, Scott5114, myselfalso. Also - apparently its ok to have project specific templates as long as the project isn't USRD or its children?![/rant]. Please make sure you know how a template is being used before making the call to delete. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ludicrously strong keep. If there's any hope to getting these articles cleaned-up, a specific category is necessary. Simply tagging them with {{cleanup}} doesn't work, because no one ever puts the required discussion on the talk page. With these templates, the rationale is provided on the tag, and it immediately brings the article to the attention of the editors most likely to clean it up. -- NORTH talk 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Unicode 4.1 code chart
Template too large and clumsy. Not currently used; outdated content. ✉Hello World! 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused and I can't imagine where it could possibly be used efficiently. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment maybe this can be made into an article (as a list) if some context is added? GracenotesT § 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Such a list would be included in Wikibooks, not here. Many Unicode tables and lists have been transwikied before, including b:Unicode/Character_reference which has already served as a similar purpose. Nonetheless please note that Unicode 4.1 is an outdated version; the newest version is Unicode 5.0. --✉Hello World! 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki if Wikibooks needs it. The chart at ASCII is reasonable for having the relatively few characters that are used most commonly; this one is not. If an article included this unicode chart, it would be too much of a directory (though I don't like using this word, it seems to apply here). –Pomte 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; the Unicode Wikibook seems to cover all this content and more (though if I'm mistaken, change my vote to transwiki). Krimpet (talk/review) 05:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki per Krimpet. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per PSUMark2006. Acalamari 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:SouthwestMinnesotaStateBasketballCoach
Navbox filled with red links for coaches for a Division II basketball program who, by extension, would be inherently non-notable and not deserving of having an article created. — fuzzy510 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - it seems fruitless to navigate under one topic when an article about that topic doesn't exist. And, indeed, only one article within that topic exists. GracenotesT § 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Gracenotes. Template is only relevant to one article, and those red links only potentially encourage creation of articles on non-notable topics. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Gracenotes and WP:NOTE. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
- Delete per Gracenotes. Acalamari 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Denton Texas
Not used, not sure what it's use was for. — Joe I 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not that useful. Perhaps we can apply WP:SNOW here. GracenotesT § 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no purpose... Abeg92contribs 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, artifact. Herostratus 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unfortunately it doesn't meet any speedy criteria, but it has no useful content whatsoever. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Blast 05.04.07 0105 (UTC)
- Delete not needed. Acalamari 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beer external link templates
WP:SPAM exists only to generate an external link. — DurovaCharge! 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: External link generated is a source for all pages in which template is transcluded. --Stlemur 10:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: If an external link is warranted, it can be added to the article directly. This template is used to promote link spam. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: a lot of templates exist to generate an external link. The question here is whether the site in question is reliable and informative. GracenotesT § 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Gracenotes: other templates generating external links are widely used and are accepted in the community and across multiple WikiProjects (c.f. {{imdb}}). These, on the other hand, despite being months old, have barely been used.
-
- BeerAdvocate-beer: 0 links in the article namespace.
- Quaffale-brewery: 3 links in the article namespace.
- BeerAdvocate-brewery: 21 links in the article namespace.
- Also, note at Category:External link templates: "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...(1) Primary sources...(2) Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does...(3) Wikimedia sisterprojects. The only applicable criterion is #2, and seeing as BeerAdvocate is presently a redlink on WP, that hardly demonstrates its notability. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The count may have been done at an odd moment -- another recent count put the use of beeradvocate-brewery around 131, although beeradvocate-beer should probably go. quaffale-brewery isn't used much yet but mostly because not many people are writing articles about UK breweries. The current status of BA as a redlink is due to the article being recently speedied on very little notice by someone who was mmistaken in thinking it was spam. --Stlemur 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is really multi-posting at its worst (or close), so I've combined these three nominations. Anyone can feel free to qualify if he or she thinks that some templates, but not others, merit keeping. GracenotesT § 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete site not reliable.Mikebe 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a link that establishes notability for BeerAdvocate, though I'm not sure about reliability. There's an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Beer. –Pomte 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete sites fail for a large part WP:EL, and I now see that even reliability is questioned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
