Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 28

< February 27	February 29 >

February 28[edit]

Template:SBAS[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 all. Sandstein 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These five templates all refer to basically the same thing, and all are completely unused in the main article space, currently only appearing on the author's user page and on a directory page. The standard flag template (namely, {{flag|Akrotiri and Dhekelia}}) can accomplish the same thing (if needed), in a much clearer manner. — Andrwsc 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content doesn't require a template. Xiner (talk, email) 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Xiner, you might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, if you're feeling like starting a ~~speedily closed~~ challenging TFD. I personally would choose to delete because it's unused, a bit specific, and seems to be outside of the harmonized system. Gracenotes^T § 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- o_O. Xiner (talk, email) 04:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unused. –_–Pomte 03:03, 4 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.

Template:PotentialVanity[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. I'll try and replace all transclusions of this template by {{COI}} before deleting. Sandstein 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) -- This will probably take until evening. Sandstein 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "vanity" should not be used on a talk page to describe a conflict of interest (see WP:COI#Importance_of_civility). The template {{COI}} can be used as an alternative. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, the word "vanity" is considered harmful. Delete. >Radiant< 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm not sure COI captures exact nuance, so I wouldn't support a delete or merger, but perhaps this template could be renamed to "Userification candidate" or something like that. --Arcadian 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming would be acceptible, provided PotentialVanity is not left as a shortcut. Otherwise well-intending users will still leave {{PotentialVanity}} on talk pages, and the problem still exists. A soft redirect would be ok.– Tivedshambo (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like {{userfy}} is appropriate for these cases. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political rectitude going over the top. The term "vanity publishing" has been around for years and that is what these articles are. In any case, we should be talking about {{potential vanity}} which is for human use. PotentialVanity is created by the bot after adding year and month. -- RHaworth 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{Potential vanity}} is merely a redirect to {{PotentialVanity}} – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the least objection to the term "vanity" or to synonyms, (I like "biospam") It is an accurate description of a good deal of the junk that gets written here, and it is not that pejorative a term as to be really insulting. We all have some. But this template is confusing and not straightforward. The pages to which it applies are not the least likely to be user pages mistakenly created as articles. That may be intended as a gentle way of putting it, but I think it is unclear and not helpful to the new editor. We do not, after all, really want that when he starts a user page, he should put the material there. So Delete We have enough other templates to do the job.DGG 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political correctness should have its limits, and the deletion of this template, which is already redundant to {{COI}}, is perfectly within those limits. Vanity is a term with negative connotations. We should avoid its use as we really never know who is actually writing an article and may therefore mistakenly insult an unrelated editor who did not know better than to add independent sources to an article about h(er|is) friend (or not add the article in the first place). -- Black Falcon 05:53, 5 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.

Template:PD-Aus[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. Herostratus 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Template:PD-Aus(edit talk links history) and[reply]
Category:Images in the public domain in Australia(edit talk links history) WP:CDP
proposed for deletion: unnecessary fork of {{PD-Australia}} and Category:Australian public domain photographs, template does not provide any legal citations to indicate why the images are in the public domain, should be deleted. I've tagged the two images that used the license tag with {{subst:nsd}}. --Iamunknown 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why would you use such an uninformative template over an informative one? -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unneeded clutter in a big mess of usable, existing copyright tags. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong relist: I failed to properly notify editors and did not tag the template until today (see diff). --Iamunknown 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not informative enough. Xiner (talk, email) 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use template with reasons instead. JPD (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, there is no reason stated. People should use a template with more information. -- Wenli 04:06, 3 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.

Template:Morepolitics[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, replace with {{main}}. Sandstein 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessarily verbiose and specific duplicate of {{main}} and other disambig templates. Xiner (talk, email) 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why not just use {{main}}, and why be so verbose about it if you're not going to? "More information about X can be found at X, the article for X"? -Amarkov moo! 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the more general {{main}} is more flexible. This template is too specific to merit its existence. Mazin07^C₪_T 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to standardize. John Reaves (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{main}}. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ibid. OverMyHead 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ibid. --theDúnadan 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: how rare are these too-specific-and-redundant-with-another-template templates. Gracenotes ^T § 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pick any rationale above. *Mishatx*-In\Out 05:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, those overly specific templates are really annoying and somewhat useless. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template adds unnecessary KB size to the page. main is the standard. Benjwong 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we're not to have moreeconomics, moregeography, more-whatever-you-can-think-of templates this has to be deleted. The main templates makes all the section headers look standard with link to main article, I can't think of any reason why every section should have customized template which only gets the reader to read the whole text while giving him no information at all. So it is inconsistent and unintuitive.--Pethr 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{main}} is a pretty good template for the kind of things this template did. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.cs 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and too wordy. --Barry entretien 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary, {{main}} is perfectly adequate. 74.38.32.195 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as it links not only to an article, but to a series (the Politics of series). If it is to be deleted, please replace all templates Morepolitics with Main. Electionworld Talk? 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always thought this one was strange. {{main}} should suffice. — Brian (talk) 09:25, 6 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.

Template:NotWoW[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 on wheels. IronGargoyle 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DENY. Noclip 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You would need way too much paranoia to automatically assume now that anything with the phase "wheels" is due to our pagemove vandal friend. And if you did assume such, you wouldn't check the talk page. Disagree with the WP:DENY though, this would be valid were there actually a problem. -Amarkov moo! 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no huge pagemove vandal outbreaks recently; no need for this template anymore. —METS501 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete only because it's not used, and not needed; not because of that lovely theoretical essay. Gracenotes ^T § 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but for Pete's sake, please add it to WP:BAD, as I could not stop myself from laughing when I realized what it was for. Whooooooo, that's good. I mean bad; as a template. Good as a joke. OverMyHead 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what happened to WP:AGF? That applies to articles too, not just editors. Assume an article isn't vandalism before assuming it is. But we should still add it to WP:BAD. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer necessary. Unless this becomes a problem again, in which case, undelete. --tjstrf talk 01:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a pointless template. There isn't even a page called NotWoW. -- Wenli 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "NotWoW" is just included as the page name (see the template in use here). Delete as it's silly, WP:DENY, WP:That's-ancient-history-now-anyway (a policy someone should write). *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As for Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NotWoW, I am baffled by all the apparently humourous X on wheels articles. –Pomte 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose WP:DENY is applicable here, though I believe that WP:DENY is overused. Personally, some of the pages it's on make me laugh. Delete for sure and maybe add to WP:BJAODN. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently on BJAODN#59, Wikipedia:Dr. Bad Jokes, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Deleted Nonsense#From Template:NotWoW GRBerry 00:12, 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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]