Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6[edit]

Template:User coal1[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete M a rtinp23 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox that I created back when I was new and unclear about the userbox policy. I was the only one using it and have moved it to my own userspace, so this template can probably be deleted assuming there's no objection --Dragomiloff 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Request comes from the author and only user. TSO1D 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7 (speedy delete). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:31, 7 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Luke 22:3[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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete M a rtinp23 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created in error after a user tried to edit a {{fact}} tag in the article Satan (see this edit). ... discospinster _talk 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Nom. TSO1D 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Paved with good intentions, it seems. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G6 (speedy delete) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:34, 7 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Linescore Amfootball3OT[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made modifications to {{Linescore Amfootball}} to be able to handle OTs automatically by adding the same variables that the OTs used. I have orpahaned all the OT templates as the one template can handle all of them, and if needed, any length of OT with expansion. --MECU≈talk 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7 (speedy delete) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:37, 7 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Linescore Amfootball2OT[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made modifications to {{Linescore Amfootball}} to be able to handle OTs automatically by adding the same variables that the OTs used. I have orpahaned all the OT templates as the one template can handle all of them, and if needed, any length of OT with expansion. (sorry for duplicates) --MECU≈talk 17:52, 6 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Linescore AmfootballOT[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete as deprecated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made modifications to {{Linescore Amfootball}} to be able to handle OTs automatically by adding the same variables that the OTs used. I have orpahaned all the OT templates as the one template can handle all of them, and if needed, any length of OT with expansion. (sorry for duplicates) --MECU≈talk 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template is still being used by UAAP Season 69 basketball tournaments. Will you replace all instances of it with {{Linescore Amfootball}} and then let me know? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Template is now an orphan. z4ns4tsu\^talk 04:06, 15 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:CapnCrack[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy, then prodded with message, "unneeded, no reason to feed the trolls". As Prod is not for templates, I have listed here. This is a procedural nomination, so I therefore abstain --RoninBK_ETC 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Also {{Capn Crack}} should be deleted along with this. --MECU≈talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest not "Speedy", however none of this vandals accounts are exactly "Sockpuppets" as they're all blatantly vandalic by their names alone. However, if it IS needed, the {{sockpuppet}} can be easily used. 68.39.174.238 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed since the generic template would work just fine. Koweja 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Canderous Ordo 23:39, 14 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Totally-disputed[edit]

Decision was keep

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep, after Dreadlocke alerted me to the fact that an IP had deleted a huge number of !votes. Result changed to keep from weak keep with this information. M a rtinp23 10:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, only difference between this is {{disputed}} is, like, totally "factual accuracy" and stuff. Are the brighter colors really enough to set this template apart? Also, the related template {{Totally-disputed-section}}. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totallydisputed = disputed + POV problems. Actually, I think a better bet would be adding those two templates instead. So delete. (Radiant) 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted I agree with Radiant. --MECU≈talk 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have used this template before and believe it's a nice compact package for those situations. TSO1D 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radiant Diez2 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, saves template overload when an article has lots of issues. It's not redundant; the other one doesn't address neutrality problems. It's been around since 2004 and has over 500 inbound links, so it's obviously useful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helps prevent template overload; I've seen pages with 4 templates worth of cleanup cluttering the top of the page, and that makes Wikipedia look like a caricature of itself. I'm not saying that every possible combination should have its own template, but Factual accuracy + POV is a (unfortunately) common combination. SnowFire 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This comment was valid at the time I posed it, but is no longer. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) This template was created as a redirect to Template:TotallyDisputed which has a long history. Is the debate here about deletion of the long-lived template or the newly created redirect? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its useful for completely POV or fictional articles (of which there are more than a few)Maunus 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the two separate tags instead. If one problem should be solved on its own, the relevant tag can then be removed. There is also the problem of determining whether one problem is causing the other: is the article not neutral because of the inaccuracy, or are the two problems distinct? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a useful tag for those articles which not only have NPOV problems but also are full of errors. --ScienceApologist 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better to combine POV and factual accuracy issues into one. --A.Garnet 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasoning is simple: one template for concerns, rather than a mass of POVX/POVY templates, is helpful. --SunStar Net^talk 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tag is quite useful when an article has numberous problems and also it saves us from using too many templates at the top of the page. Abstrakt 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combination this template provides is commonly used (at least in my humble experience) and is very helpful to have when the article is already crowded with other templates, which seems to happen a lot. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SnowFire. MaxSem 17:05, 8 December 2006 (
Keep This template is still necessary. We can never have enough templates to choose from when marking a page that is in need of improvement. munboy 06:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the difference between having one or two templates on a page is tiny compared to the potential for confusion when only one of the issues is addressed. If an editor says, "well, I see how to fix the neutrality issue, but I'm not sure how to address the factual accuracy question" (or vice versa), then, after editing, he's faced with the issue of what to do with the template. Leaving it is bad, since it no longer applies. Removing it is bad, since part of it does still apply. Replacing it is the right option, but many (most?) editors will have no idea of what to replace it with! Basically, this template is a minor convenience for lazy taggers, and a big hassle for earnest, hard-working editors! If it is kept, then I think it should be modified to document both of its potential downgrades. Xtifr _tälk 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (addendum): Not to mention the fact that the name is kind of snarky. I've used this template myself, but, having now thought about the matter, I don't think I ever will again. Xtifr _tälk 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template. Khoi khoi 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is useful, but should be re-named. There are articles where this template would substitute well for both the factual accuracy and NPOV templates. AEMoreira042281 _talk 15:50 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep was nominated 4 months ago, since then nothing has changed, refer to entirely valid reasons given previously... Addhoc 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, obvious. --Irpen 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Unquestionably necessary. Lan Di 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but rename per AEMoreira042281. {{pov-fact}} perhaps?--Oden 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, usefully and succinctly warns both editors and readers alike that what follows needs to be treated with scepticism and reserve, without having to flood an article with a brace of mini banners one for each noted deficiency. There are rather too many seriously flawed articles, and often too few resources to make the major corrections needed at the time.--cjllw | TALK 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amoruso 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful tag, neutrality And accuracy, different from the other tags. Too many tags at the top of a page make the article unreadable and are more likely to be removed in the interest of appearances alone. Fourdee 09:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple arguments above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above †he Bread 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per xtifr above. Nimrand 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. KazakhPol 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual accuracy and neutrality are quite different issues, for this reason this template is useful. E104421 15:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very useful. FrummerThanThou 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful. Having one tag that summarises the issues instead of one for each problem is nice and compact. Having to put two tags at the top of an article would be an uglier start to reader experience. 58.179.185.29 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful to have one tag mean neutrality questioned and facts disputed --Trödel 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above KaragouniS 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a better name, but a perfectly fine template. Koweja 02:56, 14 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Australian COTW candidate[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete as deprecated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been marked as deprecated. No incoming links or transclusions. Appropriate replacement already made and in use. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there even needs to be a template for COTM candidates. --MECU≈talk 17:59, 6 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Heroes2[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete as deprecated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Template is an unused copy of an old version of {{Heroes}}. Edit summary marks it as "archival.". This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to tfd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I nommed it in the first place. No point in archiving a specific version of a page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MECU≈talk 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TSO1D 01:43, 7 December 2006 (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 page.