Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:29, 9 March 2007

< March 7	March 9 >

March 8

Template:Infobox Marist High School

redundant to templates that already exist. --evrik ^(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Kim_Possible

I created this box in template space but I have moved it to User space. No links. — Randall Bart 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oligarchs

Pure POV, no hard criteria for inclusion. A bunch of rich influential Russians and ex-Russians in wildly different circumstances. And, of course, "Oligarch" is a loaded term fraught with implications. Delete. --- NYC JD (make a motion) 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree dude. Though I understand where you are coming from. But I think its not just about knowing a bunch of rich russians. This is very unique example of how a certain group of people have exploited the national strategic industry amid social and political changes.

I have created this template not to complement or dennounce a group of rich men. I have created this so when someone is reading about one economic exploiters, he or she can see other examples of this at the bottom of the page. In my view, this certain group of poeple should be linked to one another because of their remarkebly similar rise to power - acquiring vast strategic assests through political exploitation. Many thanks -- Ash sul 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have reasons or making the template, but how do you decide who belongs on the template and who is simply rich? —dgies^t_c 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. If we consider rich and (at some point) politically powerful people oligarchs, some of the people mentioned there don't deserve inclusion (as they have never enjoyed considerable political influence in the former Soviet Union - e.g. Gaydamak and Makhmudov have no proven political weight in Russia, while Chubais, being politically influential, has his wealth estimations based on rumors), while some clearly relevant people which are not included do. But this would be a very debatable matter inappropriate for a template. I think that something like categorization of the people as both Category:Russian billionaires and Category:Russian politicians should be prerequisite for inclusion. It is also poorly structured and the people are not directly related to each other, so we hardly need a template here at all. A category would be more than enough, and its coverage would be much more easy to correct in one step, while with a template we need two steps at least (modifying articles + modifying the template). Colchicum 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, BLP issues, heavy POV. MaxSem 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular slow delete - POV is not a speedy deletion criteria. BLP only applies for attack pages (WP:CSD#G10), but "oligarch" has positive connotations too. Lastly I think calling it WP:CSD#T1 is a bit of a stretch. That being said, unless we have attributable references for everyone on the list saying they are an oligarch, then it's contested unsourced POV. —dgies^t_c 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's about same criteria as listing people on Business oligarch. Political/state power combined with business ownership. There are numerous articles with oligarchs ratings. It can be possible to add limit for inclusion in template description "List top 20 xUSSR oligarchs by their all-time high net worth". Those people are well-known as oligarchs. In case if community will decide to delete navigation box - it's a must to replace it with list or category. --TAG 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Television colour

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 Withdraw per the comment below. Stickeylabel 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Television colour should be deleted. The template is designed to increase the difficulty to alter a television articles infobox background colour. It does not serve a purpose that wasn't already being performed. There are no links to the template accessible for wikipedians, and there is no mention of the template on television talk pages. An inaccessible template that also employs complicated and esoteric features of template syntax, thats primary purpose is for a simple function that was easily accessible with the Infobox Television template, does not belong on Wikipedia. Stickeylabel 13:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - result of months of a long conversation to avoid colour abuse in templates. Matthew 13:10, 8 March 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 page.

All national team Squad TP other than World Cup

It already discussed before (October 17, November 13, November 17, November 21, November 30, December 4, December 12, Deletion review December 21) The result is delete all (and some expection, e.g. Champions), but seems this time should re-discuss. Matthew_hk t c 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator's reasoning is entirely correct. Punkmorten 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the templates of winning squads--KaragouniS 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but champions. Can someone explain why on earth we should delete Euro champions templates? Last times fail to indicate consensus. To quote last closing admin:

I'm relisting this because like Amarkov I'm having a hard time understanding the nomination, but if I read this correctly the contested CfD is the December 4 one, which ended in a no-consensus against precedent. So !votes in favor of deletion should read "overturn, delete", not "endorse deletion". Also, since Greece won the Euro 2004 the Denmark 1992 precedent should hold and the CfD end in a split decision (keep Greece, delete Latvia). Iow, a tangled mess worse than offside rules. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Niko Silver 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly the sort of thing templates are for, and it provides some relief for the category system. CalJW 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chelsea F.C. Reserves squad

Per previous discussion, no club's squad TP other than current first team. --Matthew_hk t c 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Lakes

Trivial list of links to mostly nonexistent articles about bodies of water at Walt Disney World Resort. Whoville 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Templates like this, in my experience, spur article creation/improvement. I would bet we'd have articles on all or nearly all of these lakes in a year. --W.marsh 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do you have an example of template-caused article creation? OverMyHead 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I created {{Kentucky Parks}} just 6 weeks ago, I think only a third of the links were blue. Now all but three are. It doesn't always happen that fast, but it helps. --W.marsh 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in participating in TFD actively, but I'll just note this: I created tons of articles on Ohio townships because of redlinks in templates. Nyttend 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Villiage Lake is {{prod}}'d. The use of this template at Epcot#World Showcase Lagoon is questionable (one sentence mid-page should not justify a section+template). But I do not know whether they are each notable. Perhaps it would be better to make a List of Walt Disney World lakes. –Pomte 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist so consensus can be reached. IronGargoyle 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim - Only 3 on that list have an article and I doubt many more are notable enough to merit one. Trim to only lakes with an article. —dgies^t_c 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - if it helps gets new articles created keep it. The only issue I can think of is notability. Chupper 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linkimage

Strong Delete. This template survived a discussion at TfD - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14 for that discussion. A similar template with the same author and a similar purpose, Template:Offensiveimage, was deleted - see Wikipedia:templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/February 2005#Template:Offensiveimage for that discussion. Thanks to all who gave their input in those discussions. The existence of this template falsely implies that there should be a mechanism within Wikipedia to allow images thought to be potentially offensive (by a very small minority) to be hidden from view, or censored. Wikipedia is not censored. This is an encylopedia. We present information. We do not censor information. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Also Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of narrow minded adults who for some reason demand to be able to read every article at work without upsetting the boss. That some people don't like some information (text or pictures) is not a reason for that information to be deleted, neither a reason to add a warning that the information may be offensive. That some information (lolicon pictures for example) is banned in some countries is indeed sad but WP should not censor information that is legal in the USA. The user who created this template enjoys pushing his POV on others in regard to "offensive" images (and has felt the wrath of arbcom numerous times as a result). The POV he is pushing appears to be a moral one as described at Censorship#By subject matter and agenda consistent with that of people who describe themselves as having right-wing politics. This template and its purpose are POV and therefore unacceptable, and many have been reverting uses of it. Its current uses in mainspace include transclusion in the following penis-related articles: pre-ejaculate; ejaculation; subincision; autofellatio; and John and Lorena Bobbitt. We're not the babysitters of the faint of heart among us. If this template continues to be used, we run the risk of watering down Wikipedia. OTOH, the animated GIF graphic Image:Sonic 2 ss animated.gif which this template hides from normal view on Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit) could actually do damage to users' systems by eating up memory, but I'm resisting the urge to foist my POV (that it's garish and I'd not want to have to look at it for a long period of time) on my fellow editors and readers. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is ironic that the nominator complains of POV yet spouts his own POV with phrases like "narrow minded adults". There are several misleading items in the nomination, such as the idea that this template somehow contains "a warning" or that it implies some sort of mechanism exists. Johntex\^talk 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can anyone think of an NPOV reason why this template might be useful? Catalogs of images? —dgies^t_c 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice absolutely agree with the WP:NOT#CENSORED logic of the nominator. (→Netscott) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's views on censorship should be clarified, but this template assumes Wikipedia permits it. -- Ec5618 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if you look up penis, guess what you are going to see? No need to use a text link. I can think of no NPOV to use this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - This is an irrelevant example. The template is not used on penis and to my knowledge never has been. It is used on articles that are more pornographic than that, such as a photo of a man sucking his own penis. If anyone ever wants to add a pornographic fair use image to Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas it would be useful for that. It would also be useful if any porn producer decides they want to promote their movies by releasing GFDL images of Double penetration. For that matter, it would be useful if an editor goes home tonight and convinces his boyfriend/girlfriend to pose for a photo giving a blow job and uploads it under CC2.5. There are many valid reasons to have this template. Johntex\^talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the template is not used for "censorship". Please go look up censorship. The common definition of censorship is when the government or other central authority imposes restriction by fiat. That is not how this template gets used. It gets used when editors decide to use it. There is nothting in WP:NOT or in any other Wikipedia policy that REQUIRES us to show an image inline in the article.

There are many valid reasons not to have an image prominent at the top of an article. For instance, many people will come to an article not fully understanding what the term means. For another thing, many people will know what the term means but will expect an encyclopedia to cover such a topic with pure prose, not with photographs. For a third thing, we can make any link go to any article. For all these reasons it is not correct to say "if they come to the article they should expect what they get".

This template is a wonderful compromise between people who say these articles should not carry a picture at all, and those who want to display the image. This lets people view a plain text article if they want, but the image is just a click away if they decide they want to see it.

We need to keep this template and have it available as a tool. It is up to the editors of a specific article to decide if this tool is best for that article or not. Johntex\^talk 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The implementation and utilization of MediaWiki:Bad image list essentially negates the further need for this tool. (→Netscott) 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - that is really not the case. For one thing, the "Bad image list" includes exceptions for pages where the image is still displayed inline. The whole point of the linkimage template is to keep the image available, but not inline. It is not a substitute at all. Johntex\^talk 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not obvious to everyone that an article about pre-ejaculate will have a photographic image of a penis. Having that image be the first thing readers of the article see has some shock value that detracts from the encyclopedic content of the article. Images are supposed to improve articles, not detract from them. The article is currently too short to be able to move the (useful if not used for shock value) image further down the article to put it on the second page. I am not aware of any articles on Wikipedia that display a graphic image at the top of the article. For example, in the penis article the color image is (on my monitor) on the third page (i.e. enough article space to fill my monitor twice before the color image). The color image in the vulva article is on the second page. This template appears to be used to avoid exactly this situation - in pre-ejaculate, ejaculation, subincision, autofellatio, and John and Lorena Bobbitt, the linkimage is found very near the top, viewed on the first page of most any monitor. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Netscott mentioned, many of these images appear on the bad image list: an issue that transcends any outcome of a TFD, really. To rephrase: this template is a way to include in articles images such as those that are listed there, and once this template is deleted we can't just say "take it off of the list!" or call for scrapping the list altogether. Provided that this template is only used for bad images, I have no problem keeping it, since they can't be displayed in articles anyway, and might as well have a pretty link to them. I personally do not view those images as offensive, but would prefer not to eat breakfast looking at them. But this vote isn't about censorship. Gracenotes^T § 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOV, we should not decide whether an image of X on article X is inappropriate/offensive. Per WP:NOT, we should not censor information. Besides the two policies, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Also, although this template does not say "Warning, NSFW image!", that is still the message it gives to the reader. Prolog 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, deleting this template does not mean that we are going to get rid of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, or make pictures uncensored in any way. That is a separate issue. Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ironically, deleting this template would be more akin to censorship than keeping it. If we keep it, it is still up to the editors of a certain page to decide whether or not they want to use it. Keeping this template preserves editorial choice and freedom. Johntex\^talk

Keep. This has many uses, but first I want to rebut the arguments given for deleting it:

1. The argument that this is censorship is downright silly. The image is still there. It's just not brought up automatically. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy to indicate that that would be considered censorship. Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Template:Linkimage withholds nothing, and it removes nothing.

2. The argument that a template designed by the same person was deleted is also silly; it is beyond argumentum ad hominem, since the linkimage template survived while the other template was brought to TfD by its creator.

Now for the uses of the template:

1. There are articles in which it is a good compromise. See pre-ejaculate. People looking up the article might expect to see the substance, but I think many will be surprised to see a penis. On the other hand, many contributors think it's important to have such an image. The only consensus that could be reached was to use Template:Linkimage.

2. Secondly, some articles may be viewed because it is not clear what the term is about. I'm not going to find circle jerk in Webster's dictionary, and a reader might not know going in that it's something sexual. Imagine if the topic were deemed important enough to have its own article; someone might decide that the appropriate image, failing the finding of any erotic art, to be a photograph of the act itself. So a Template:Linkimage might be good there, too.

3. If a user has popups, an errant mouse push after leaving a page up on an article like birth control can conjure up an image they might not have wished to see.

4. There's Special:Random. Imagine the surprise of someone who thinks that Wikipedia's a good research tool comparable to a paper encyclopedia (even though Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia), only to find a link off the main page showing something that they would never expect to see there.

5. As pointed out, animated gifs are often annoying in articles but useful as links.

In short, this provides a useful function without violating WP:NOT#CENSOR, and ad hominem reasoning to the contrary (as with all ad hominem reasoning) is fallacious. I know there are many people who think that using Template:Linkimage violates some core belief of theirs, but that belief is not the same as WP:NOT#CENSOR, so they'll have to come up with a different argument for why this should be deleted. Calbaer 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. In an optimal world we would have no linkimage template, no bad image list, and no one disturbed by those images. Given the reality of the bad image list and people disturbed by those images (and many editors who assume that the images are vandalism and that they're doing a favor by deleting them), I think keeping the template is in our best interest. In order to make it seem less like censorship, it would help if we used it more on images of things other than penises. ^L_Wizard @ 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not completely sure what this template does, but doesn't this just do the same thing as adding a colon before the image name, such as [[:Image:Example.jpg]]? If so, then delete for redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: no, this template does not do same exact thing. For example, we can have the text "The shortcut for this page is [[WP:TFD]]", or we could have "{{shortcut|WP:TFD}}". Templates like this conveniently afford us a consistent (and more aesthetic) user interface. Gracenotes^T § 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:03, 9 March 2007 edit Reywas92 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 77,132 edits →‎[[Template:Linkimage]] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:29, 9 March 2007 edit undo Gracenotes (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 18,359 edits →‎[[Template:Linkimage]]: re Next edit →
Line 116:		Line 116:

	*'''Comment''' I'm not completely sure what this template does, but doesn't this just do the same thing as adding a colon before the image name, such as <nowiki>[[:Image:Example.jpg]]</nowiki>? If so, then '''delete''' for redundancy. <font style="background:#7FFF00">[[User:Reywas92\|'''Reywas92''']]</font><sup><font style="background:#00ff7f">[[User talk:Reywas92\|'''Talk''']]</font></sup> 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)		*'''Comment''' I'm not completely sure what this template does, but doesn't this just do the same thing as adding a colon before the image name, such as <nowiki>[[:Image:Example.jpg]]</nowiki>? If so, then '''delete''' for redundancy. <font style="background:#7FFF00">[[User:Reywas92\|'''Reywas92''']]</font><sup><font style="background:#00ff7f">[[User talk:Reywas92\|'''Talk''']]</font></sup> 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
			*:'''Clarification''': no, this template does not do same exact thing. For example, we can have the text <nowiki>"The shortcut for this page is [[WP:TFD]]", or we could have "{{shortcut\|WP:TFD}}"</nowiki>. Templates like this conveniently afford us a consistent (and more aesthetic) user interface. [[User:Gracenotes\|<font color="#960">Grace</font><font color="#000">notes</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes\|<font color="#960">T</font>]]</sup> § 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)