Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Template:Atom bases[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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It Is unused and its use of a template is unclear. It may be an article?. Balloonguy 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and redundant. Carlosguitar 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned and unneeded. -- Satori Son 14:27, 24 September 2007 (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:Atletico Adelaide Squad[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is unused in any articles and is a collection of red links.. Balloonguy 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete red link farm. Carlosguitar 17:27, 19 September 2007 (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:Wikipedia related communities noheading[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Was blanked for over a year — Balloonguy 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Carlosguitar 14:24, 22 September 2007 (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:CW New Hampshire[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another template for a state (this time New Hampshire) that does not actually have a CW affiliate. Just like a similar template for CBS, the template actually admits this; both stations on the template are actually based in Maine and Massachusetts. Precedent has shown that these templates require the network actually have affiliates based in the state for the template to exist.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence can be found for a CW station licensed to any community in New Hampshire, which I believe is the criterion for the network-in-a-state templates. Had there even been a translator in the state, as is the case with {{CBS New Hampshire}}, I would have recommended to keep the template, but there is none. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dhett and Wcquidditch. No need for this template. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:30, 19 September 2007 (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:1632 covers[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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template's purpose is to provide links from article space to image space. Images of all the covers here are already shown on the articles linked from Template:1632 series; the links in this template are redundant, except they go to different (orphaned, actually) images in the image namespace. Linking directly from articles to the image namespace is a form of self reference; we want navigation boxes to keep the reader in the article namespace.. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because this is very questionable fair use. Direct linking from a template is not identification in the context of critical commentary. There's no way to justify the use of these images anywhere except in the articles about the books. szyslak 08:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the template also (and primarily) is used to manage and link image to image--and idea I copied from the commons. Forcing reader interested to navigate back to article space to navigate back to image space is hardly going to endear readers to "our desire" to force them to focus the way "some might like", so piffle for that WP:SELF arguement.

This is a very complex series of books inasmuch as it's morphed into a rapidly published multi-author (perhaps unique) collection of collaborative fiction in both anthology and novel formats all spear-headed and controled by the priciple author and creator, as it should be. ("Rapid"==better than ten works in three years. With little to slow the growth curve as the publisher "surfs" the tidal wave of public interest and demand.)

Providing a link to other covers in an article is hardly an evasion of fairuse... all the book articles necessarily discuss the series and the setting. Linking to other books in the setting (wherein all the plots are interdependent and intertwined) is desirable--this is not a typical "shared universe" situation wherein the authors playground is loaned to a few others and they proceed to write something out about the edges--the non-Flint authored works in this milieu are canonical and important and change the rules of the milieu ever after. Lastly, the works are published in three different phases, ebook, hardcover and paperback, all released staggered in time, generally with different cover art--an encyclopediac sort of fact this template was designed to track and present without over burdening the shorter articles with too many images. ARCs (advanced reader copies available as ebooks by subscription) preceded hardcovers by three months in installments, paperbacks follow around 9-12 months later per standard print publishing practices. Such a template allows the current cover art to present in the book article, and the different covers to be viewed if and when a reader desires. "Orphaned images" have occured as other editors working the articles "disconnected" an image at a later time in favor of a higher resolution image. That editorial action hardly changes he base fact the image use is legally fair use albeit not currently "in fashion". From time to time I've myself nominated the lower resolution image for deletion. Lastly, as I recollect, I consulted with Sherool on the fair use and orphaning when the first images hit the deletion wave last winter, and this linking was deemed okay then, iirc. // FrankB 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea of linking images to images is appropriate for an image repository like commons. But Wikipedia is an article repository, not an image repository; we have images only so that they can be used in articles. That's why orphaned nonfree images are deleted. I stand by my assertion that articles should not link directly to the image namespace; again, this is because Wikipedia exists to serve articles, not to serve images.
  Linking between the various book articles is perfectly appropriate, but there is another template that does that. Unless all of these covers are themselves notable some way, which there is no evidence of, we don't need to present every cover that the books have ever had. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 20 September 2007 (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:Trivia small[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. The "important message" in {{Trivia talk}} could easily be accessed by clicking the link in {{Trivia}}. One could also read the message at the bottom of the latter. As for {{Trivia small}}, I see no discussion of a right-floated version of cleanup templates on Template talk:Ambox. It's redundant. — Malcolm (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with {{trivia}} pointless exercise in making the original template less noticeable so less people are annoyed by it. If a template is put somewhere, it's put there for a reason, regardless of how many people don't wanna hear about reality.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what makes these versions so different from {{trivia}}, in terms of which should be kept. All three are equally a matter of editor preference. I'm not sure what makes {{trivia}} all the more official. There's no guideline that says so. {{trivia}} could just as easily be nominated on similar grounds -- "We already have other templates that send the same message, and in a less-obstructive fashion. There's no need for this." But that would similarly make no sense. Let's just allow editors the choice.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:16, 09/17/2007
- Multiple types of templates with the same purpose cause confusion, are difficult to keep in sync and are inconsistent for the reader/editor. These are just forks of {{trivia}} that serve no purpose other then to sugarcoat an article cleanup message that some people don't wanna hear. We used to have small and talk page versions of most "cleanup" messages, and they have all been deleted in early 2006 if I remember well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a unique template though, in that it causes a lot of controversy. In its recent TfD there were multiple votes to keep but change it in a number of different ways -- rename it, shorten it, reword it -- so since we can't make everyone happy with one template, we compromise by offering a choice. It would be great if we could have one template that satisfied everyone, at least to the point of a consensus, but for such a controversial template, a couple of alternate versions isn't such a bad thing, just to keep the peace.
    Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:53, 09/17/2007
Reject this nomination. Each template has a different purpose. Renominate them separately.--Father Goose 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheDJ and Gavia immer (below). These variants of {{Trivia}} serve no purpose. Cleanup templates are being standardized around the new Wikipedia:Article message boxes, and trivia cleanup notices have (certain users' objections to Trivia policy notwithstanding) no reason to be treated differently. This is a needless complication that appears driven more by the objection to any Trivia template than by functionality needs relating to trivia cleanup. / edg ☺ ★ 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the standardization has to do with anything. No one said these variants should be exempt from the standardization; and even if they did, what does that have to do with deleting them?
  Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:54, 09/18/2007

{{Trivia small}} has the same text as {{Trivia}}, but it's a weirdly-sized right-aligned box that text has to flow around. No idea why someone would defend this messed-up little eyesore, unless they're simply too lazy to visit editors in their homes and smash in the corner of their monitors with a hammer.

{{Trivia talk}} is a talk page banner. Same language, but with an additional instructions to not delete anything and to start a group discussion about a standard cleanup operation. What talk page consensus agreed that drafting ad hoc bureaucracies was the way to address a well-backlogged task? Because that's all the difference between this template and {{Trivia}}.

Instead of "offering a choice" of "alternate versions", someone has made three templates that say you can really ignore this instruction, one designed to be hidden, the other designed to repel the eye. These two additional choices do not address any need. / edg ☺ ★ 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion going on at ambox to standardize a small right-floated version of ambox for purposes such as {{trivia small}}. The talk page banner doesn't say not to delete anything; it says not to delete relevant and verifiable information, as a reminder to not do that which some editors tend to mistakenly do with trivia sections. It doesn't suggest anything bureaucratic; it simply expands on the regular {{trivia}} instructions to integrate, by suggesting a discussion of possible ways to integrate. The way you're describing these is blowing things a bit out of proportion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:33, 09/18/2007

That's great, but there is no need for small cleanup templates. Neither of these templates is needed. That they can eventually be made less messed up does not make them needed. / edg ☺ ★ 04:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them is messed up. One of them just hasn't been standardized yet, and you can't possibly be saying that's a reason to delete it. We haven't deleted other templates for not having been standardized yet -- we just wait til they are. I understand that you don't like them, and I agree they're not required in a technical sense, but they may help, due to the controversial nature of this subject.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:26, 09/18/2007

Delete both per nom. Neither of these do anything that {{trivia}} doesn't do. PC78 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trivia talk, it's ugly compared to the new Trivia template, but has the important note that editors aren't supposed to delete information merely because it's in a trivia section. Tempshill 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With the new and improved look and feel of Template:Trivia, there's no need for these two anymore. Template:Trivia now looks pretty, is small and unobtrusive enough to make Template:Trivia Small obsolete, and contains all the necessary information that Template:Trivia Talk contains, but in a condensed form. --The Wild Falcon 10:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I tried to get the WP:OWN-violating language ("do not delete") out of Template:Trivia talk. The last thing we need is for these alternate templates to be maintained as confrontational pseudo-warnings simply because they're less watched than the original. Hence, we should delete these in favor of having only a single trivia template. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit summary said something about the wording encouraging non-good-faith edits. It didn't make much sense, that's why I reverted you. If you have a good reason to change the language I'll support it.
  Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:24, 09/18/2007

It's not that it encourages non-good-faith edits; it's the assertion that if the template is in place, certain types of good-faith edits are prohibited (the "do not delete" language I mentioned above). Is that sufficient explanation of the problem? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. My intention with the wording was only to prevent the type of "fixing" of trivia sections where people just remove them indiscriminately. I may not have done a good job with that.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:26, 09/18/2007

Delete both: the small one is totally redundant and unnecessary, the talk one is mostly redundant and unnecessary, except where it's misleading and inappropriate. And while the misleading and inappropriate part could easily be fixed, the redundant and unnecessary part can't be. Xtifr _tälk 06:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. CO₂ 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Redundant templates work against standardization. Neitherday 00:35, 27 September 2007 (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:Infobox Town Cuba[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. — Malcolm (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depreciated by {{Infobox Settlement}}, all transclusions migrated, not used anymore. — Qyd 16:27, 17 September 2007 (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:Deletable image2[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 to move to user space. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fork of {{Deletable image}}, and I see no rationale for forking it.. _→AzaToth 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only difference I see between the two is the border color is blue instead of red. --Farix (Talk) 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a less BITEing version that I use for my bot. The other templates I use, which are based on that one, are also modified to assume good faith. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between them is a change in the border color. How does that make it less BITEing? --Farix (Talk) 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unnecessary duplicate of an existing template. PC78 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They truely are identical. It's only the border colour. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: indeed, they are identical. If you really need a different border color in some cases, you could petition to have the border color in {{Deletable image}} parameterized. Xtifr _tälk 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above users' reasoning. Sebi _[talk] 06:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per duplication. Carlosguitar 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It's the same template. Userfy if you want. The Evil Spartan 00:26, 20 September 2007 (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:Oh My Goddess OVA infobox[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is a duplicate of the functionality in Template:Infobox animanga/Header and Template:Infobox animanga/OVA. --Farix (Talk) 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another template redundant to an infobox... *Cremepuff 222* 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not simply redirect? -- Cat ^chi? 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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:Editors[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of a silly idea – surely every project page we have could be said to "help those who plan to edit Wikipedia articles" in some way. Unused — 81.153.158.137 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally pointless. szyslak 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless template. Sebi _[talk] 06:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was a previous TFD on the template, and it was kept, so I'm not sure that everyone considers it that useless. The Special:Whatlinkshere argument is kind of interesting. Weak keep for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it may not be redundant to a specific template, but I think that editors can easily figure out if a page is there to help if it's in the "Help:" mainspace. :) *Cremepuff 222* 00:08, 26 September 2007 (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:Oh My Goddess Eptitle[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Appears to been a subset template when creating a group of Oh My Goddess! episode articles. No longer needed. --Farix (Talk) 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yeah. I did a google search for the template also, and it wasn't on any pages. *Cremepuff 222* 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not simply redirect? -- Cat ^chi? 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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:Infobox Oh My Goddess! character[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. Regardless of the reasons for the replacement, all but one person in this discussion spoke in favor of deleting or redirecting the template. I don't think it's necessary to worry too much about style guidelines, wikiprojects, etc. when the deletion discussion is this clear. (And I see no strong parallel between standardizing infoboxes and standardizing spelling.) The template can be easily orphaned again, so no need for a redirect, and userfying it wouldn't make sense since it's a template for article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seperated from the group below because of its associated sub-templates. It was orphaned on September 9, 2007 as part of an overall cleanup and merger campaign of over 60 character infoboxes towards a general anime and manga character infobox, Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ISO WIKIPEDIA 2007. Carlosguitar 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphan, cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. [1]
Keep. It is a great deal of bad faith to covertly orphan a template and then nominate it for deletion. No discussion for such a thing has taken place that I am aware of. Wikipedia does not endorse the ISO WIKIPEDIA 2007 standard as the International Organisation for Standardisation has no say here. I was unaware of the oprhanage of the template. I am reverting this now. I am sorry but this is more of a style issue at which guidelines and arbcom's decision is pretty clear. The "first major contributor" is me and I prefer this template over the alleged standard which was forced on the community by one or few users. -- Cat ^chi? 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat, the replacement of these character infoboxes were extensively discussed at WT:ANIME and has consensus support. The Project didn't see a point in having 60+ such templates for characters when one would do just as well. Just because you have a degree of WP:OWNership over this template doesn't give you moral high-ground to revert their replacement. --Farix (Talk) 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wikiproject is not the ultimate authority on matters. A discrete discussion on it is not the law. Even if there was a consensus on the matter at the wikiproject, the templates should not have been removed prior to a discussion here. This is TfD (Templates for deletion) and template discussions should take place here and not elsewhere for all the practical reasons. I have the "right" to revert any edit I see problematic. WP:MOS clearly indicates that "if an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason" and I so far do not see any non-style-independent reason. I do not like the overly Grey new template at all. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN. -- Cat ^chi? 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPojects are given a great deal of latitude with establishing style guidelines for the articles within their scopes. You, however, have established yourself as a style gatekeeper on some the articles. Also, there is nothing inappropriate with orphaning templates before putting it up for TfD so long as the fact has been mentioned in in the nomination. In fact, it happens rather frequently without any complaints. And lastly, your own comments indicate that your reverts are mainly over style, while the original replacement was to eliminate 60+ different templates for one general purpose template. --Farix (Talk) 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPojects are not given any policy or foundation sanction. WikiPojects are at best a list of interested users, not a license of authority.
Why was there an "elimination"? What has been the actual change with the "elimination"? Yes, just the style. This is a style issue. There is absolutely no reason why two similar templates can't exist.
-- Cat ^chi? 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But we are not talking about 2 similar templates, but 60 of them. Of which this is only one of. And so far, you haven't made a case as to why this one should be made an exception. It also isn't a style issue, but one of logistics. It's much easier to maintain one template over 60 templates. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made an exception because the most notable contributor (me) says so as per WP:MOS. I can't comment on the other templates. We can go the way of arbcom if you like. Their past ruling on the matter is clear. Sieging the Oh My Goddess! articles will not break my resilience. -- Cat ^chi? 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a MOS issue. But thank you for confirming that it is an WP:OWNership issue. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What am I owning? I want to use the style of mu choice on the article I have been contributing at which you have no real edits. Seems like you are trying to own articles at which you don't even have any real edits. -- Cat ^chi? 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"I want to use the style of [my] choice on the article I have been contributing." Listen to yourself, Cat. That statement there is your declaration of ownership of both the template and the articles it is on. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes which is inline with the arbcom desicion and MOS. This poll is void. -- Cat ^chi? 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{Infobox animanga character}} – Personally, I think the {{Infobox animanga character}} would be suitable for the task. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What again is "ISO WIKIPEDIA 2007"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A joke, see International Organization for Standardization. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what the ISO is. But you never know if anyone actually named a proposal like that... anyways, delete, as there's no need to have several templates doing the same thing. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or userfy. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — use of standard templates is a good thing; they are built from the best of what came before. --Jack Merridew 12:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that I am running into the same people... I wonder... There are no "standards"... -- Cat ^chi? 12:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Paranoia Paranoia everybody's comin to get me, Just say you never met me... -- Ned Scott 12:38, 25 September 2007 (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.

Anime and manga character infoboxes (Round 5)[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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above templates have been orphaned on or before September 10, 2007 as part of an overall cleanup and merger campaign of over 60 character infoboxes towards a general anime and manga character infobox, Template:Infobox animanga character. Since there have been no complaints since these templates were replaced, they are now ready for deletion. This is the last group save for two, one of which is in its own TfD. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ISO WIKIPEDIA 2007. Carlosguitar 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. / edg ☺ ★ 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this TFD seems to be merely a procedural one. You do NOT orphan templates/categories/articles BEFORE nominating them for deletion. They can be orphaned only AND ONLY after there is a consensus to delete them. Mere disagreement or a discrete discussion on some random page is no such consensus. -- Cat ^chi? 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? You're not allowed to be bold and replace a single-use template with a more general template if this action orphans the template? —Quasirandom 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Quasirandom 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, like the other four. -- Ned Scott 12:38, 25 September 2007 (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:Gender bias[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and will likely remain so. AFAIK, there are few content disputes related to gender bias, so this is not a large cleanup/POV problem that necessitates a unique template and associated category. {{POV}} is fine for such disputes.. szyslak 09:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete If there were some examples of articles which used this template effectively, I would support keeping it. Otherwise, it serves no purpose and POV does a better job.
Delete Template:POV does the job. Carlosguitar 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Can't find one example of it being used effectively, but here's a hypothetical: there was a problem recently with the pervasive use of "girl" to mean adult women in the ABBA article. The gender bias cleanup of ABBA changed one (1) word — all the other instance of "girl" were vernacular (e.g. song titles, "pin-up girl") and appropriate in context. I can imagine this template being useful and the cleanup job somewhat distinct from POV. But I don't see it being either used or much needed. Leaning Delete per nom until someone chimes in from the appropriate WikiProject. / edg ☺ ★ 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, Cailil, Neitherday. I don't agree this template is "inflammatory", but I do agree it is not worth keeping. Unneeded templates just add complexity/confusion. / edg ☺ ★ 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm in agreement with Edgarde. I do think this template serves a different purpose to {{POV}} since its really a systemic bias issue (as above in ABBA) rather than just a POV problem. The ABBA article is perfect example of how and where it should be used--Cailil ^talk 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perfect example of {{db-t1}}; POV should do the trick, and this is just more inflammatory.. In fact, I think this may be recreated material that was deleted under a different name, though I can't think of what it was... The Evil Spartan 00:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's divisive but I can see how it could be viewed in that way. That said, I think the fact that it has never been used stands against it, so does the fact that I can't find a reason to keep it. So on reflection I have to agree with the template's deletion--Cailil ^talk 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - a good idea, but in the end not a useful template. Neitherday 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with {{POV}}. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with {{POV}}. Such cleanup tags should never be placed on an article without a thorough explanation on the discussion page, so subcategory templates of Template:POV are superfluous. -- Satori Son 14:20, 24 September 2007 (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.