Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

Template:Welsh Universities and Template:Scottish Universities

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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welsh Universities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Scottish Universities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, all the information is contained in Template:Universities in the United Kingdom. — Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple templates for the same information as the parent Universities in the UK template...also, I hope merging these two into one discussion was ok! Ctjf83Talk 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as redundant to Template:Universities in the United Kingdom. — mholland (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As {{Universities in the United Kingdom}} exists, violates WP:NOTDIR#Cross --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (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:MySpace

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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep. Happy‑melon 16:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MySpace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

First it violates WP:EL and second there is absolutely no reference that a myspace page is actually made by the person who the page is about, therefore it is also violates Wikipedia:Verifiability to link to a myspace page without a reference the page was actually created by that person. — Ctjf83Talk 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominators reasoning. We can't verify that the person actually is in control of said myspace account. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We shouldn't generally be linking to MySpace anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a format helper. nothing more --T-rex 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Format helper for what?! Unsourced myspace pages? Ctjf83Talk 07:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is used on many sourced pages as well. Just because you don't like the site it links to doesn't mean that standardizing the links to this heavily linked to website is not a good idea. Nor will deleting this template have any effect on the number of links to myspace pages. --T-rex 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like myspace...show me an example or two, where you have proof the myspace page was made by the real celebrity, and not just a fan. Ctjf83Talk 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say close to all of them. At the very least most every band. The site has been good in that regard --T-rex 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for actually evidence, not just what you say Ctjf83Talk 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this would be used on userpages, but I really don't think it helps much there, as the few people who would want to link from there could type the link manually in as much time as typing this template. Having the template only invites its use in article space. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This is one of many templates used for formatting external links, nothing more. Many bands and celebs have official MySpace pages, and nothing will be served by deleting this template. It will only inconvenience those adding legitimate links to articles, and won't do a thing to stop those adding spam links. PC78 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said earlier, you have no proof any "legitimate myspace page" was created by the actual celebrity it claims to have been made by Ctjf83Talk 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only individual uses can violate WP:EL. We have enough legitimate uses of the link to make use of a template. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first point on "What should be linked" in Wikipedia:External links is "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any." As PC78 has pointed out, many bands and celebs have official MySpace pages. Hence there will be many occasions where a link to MySpace is appropriate, and this template is a useful formatting helper. Disputes as to whether a particular MySpace page really is official are editing matters, best left for articles' talk pages. MySpace is a top 10 website with, literally, tens of thousands of links from Wikipedia - you may feel that Wikipedia policy should reject links to MySpace, but Templates For Deletion is not the place to propose that. --Stormie (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people use Myspace as their official webpage now, for themselves, bands, movies, etc. As for not being able to prove that the person who the page is about is really in charge of it, wouldn't the same be true for any website? Its certainly easier to set up a fake myspace than a fake "normal website," but the latter is certainly possible. As Ned Scott and Stormie say, it doesn't inherently violate WP:EL and this is taking WP:V too far. Since when do we require sources to prove that a site is what it says it is? Mr.Z-man 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, anyone could set up a fake website...but those usually cost money, myspace doesn't, so a fake website is much more unlikely. Ctjf83Talk 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But certainly possible, and I would bet that it has happened in the past. It would be more believable too. And since it costs money, there's probably some malice behind it, while an unofficial myspace is probably started by a fan. My point is that we've never required sources to establish the true identity of a website before we allow linking to it, why are we starting now? Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start now? It is policy, just everyone is slacking I guess. Ctjf83Talk 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, WP:V applies to content, not external links. Go on an FAC and start complaining that the identities of the sources in the article aren't sourced and see what the reaction is. And if no one is doing it it isn't policy, as policy reflects actual practice. Mr.Z-man 23:36, 15 August 2008 (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:Cut it out

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cut it out (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a particularly useful template and the wording is a little odd. Seems redundant to the standard vandalism warnings. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More bitey version of the vandalism templates. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have plenty of good vandalism templates Ctjf83Talk 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to keep the vandalism warnings as boilerplate as possible for review. This one kind of ignores the five-level system we have going on there. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have ample templates for this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consensus has produced a carefully worded and graded set of templates that should be used. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly constructed, bitey copy of the standard uw-vandalism templates. Not used much. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who would use this template with templates like {{uw-bv}} and {{uw-vandalism4im}}? It's too bitey (and ugly). Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better alternatives. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2008 (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:USSR-Russia conflicts

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 section.

The result of the debate was template was moved which seems to address the initial concerns. I'll delete the redirect that resulted from that. - Nabla (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USSR-Russia conflicts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are different countries, and this template is not NPOV as it insinuates that they are the same country; it would be like having a template for War involving Yugoslavia and Croatia; Croatia was but a constituent republic of Yugoslavia, the same goes for Russia Россавиа ^Диалог 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, my friend. My proposal is Keep just the USSR part and remove Russia. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note to admins: that change has been done --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (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.