Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24[edit]


Template:Types of heads of state[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Types of heads of state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already commented on the template's talk page; half the listed positions are not in fact heads of state, seems pretty unfactual. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary, currently inaccurate, and somewhat arbitrary/misleading. A head of state is defined by her function rather than by any particular title or position, since different states and cultures have different titles for their "chief public representative[s]". As YeshuaDavid has noted on the template's talk page, several of the positions currently listed do not actually correspond to any heads of state. In addition, several other titles which have in the past been held by heads of state are not listed here. A list that provides explanations and examples or a section within an article (such as Head of state#Selection and various types and styles of Heads of State) would be a much better way of organizing and presenting this information. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon - this template attempts to be helpful, but just ends up being misleading. Explaining what counts as a head of state is best left to the article head of state. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (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:2009 swine flu outbreak table[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Erik9 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous XfDs for this article:

This template violates wikipedia:Original research and is very misleading. The table will be read my most (and the table format implies) that it contains estimated numbers of infections and deaths. Not only does it not but credible estimates have given numbers which are two orders of magnitude higher than those in this table [1] [2]. The tabulation of data from multiple sources with differing methodologies (including their health care monitoring resources) constitutes original research. Finally tabulating highly unreliable figures in a manner which constitutes original research is likely to do more harm than good to public debate concerning this new strain (if such figures are given credibility they do not deserve). Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does it violate WP:OR? As far as I can tell, all of the numbers are supported by (fairly) credible sources. If not, these issues can be addressed through editing, not deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each figure is from a different government using differing methodology and with a differing capacity to carry out that methodology. The table compares these figures as if there could be some sort of meaningful comparison between them without any discussion of these strong biases. Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - table is VERY useful and used on multiple pages. Any issues with the tables content should be brought up on the table talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This table is dangerously misleading. The more pages its used on the worse it becomes. There's no effective way to clean up this template without extensive original research. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per others and yes very useful and given uses refs isn't OR. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's original research because the figures are given as if they were comparable. But this isn't the case because different juristictions have differing testing policies and testing capabilities. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original research policy explicitly "does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers", so I disagree that it's a violation. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is irrelevant as its the tabular form not the additions that constitute original research (because it implicitely states that the figures are comparible when they are not). Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some consideration, I'm inclined to vote keep as the template's creator. While I realize that "useful" isn't necessarily a valid argument during deletion discussions, I am in full agreement with ThaddeusB. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please correct me if I am wrong here, but can't usefulness be a major factor in template & redirect discussions? (I realize it never applies to articles.) After all, most templates could theoretically be replaced by inline text in the articles it is used in and the valid deletion criteria explicitly says a valid argument for deletion is "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" - the opposite obviously being "non-redundant and useful."
    I know the nomination was not based on the template being useless. My argument was meant to say that the issues raised can be addressed through editing (if they even need to be addressed at all) and thus there was no reason to delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Don't agree with the claim of unreliable sources. References are based upon WHO official bulletins, figures from the health ministries of the countries and news articles. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An error of two orders of magnitude is unreliable. The table does not come with the qualifiers that are necessary and neither can we plausibly add them in. Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's an error in the data then correct it. It is merely a summation of suspected infections reported in reliable sources, there is no assertion that the definition of "suspected" is common between countries or sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A table format implies that the definitions are used are common and consistently applied. Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - As it seems everyone's points are valid, I added a subsection for "Data accuracy" as there was already enough material dealing with it: Data accuracy Some more current cites and quotes to this topic would be useful while this deletion question is pending. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Agree with Xavier above; the case numbers we use come either directly from WHO or each nation's CDC, or from reliable mainstream media sources quoting WHO or a nation's CDC. As such, they are as close to accurate as possible. Yes, there are--clearly--a large number of admittedly unreported cases in some areas (the United States, the EU, and Japan, for example), but since we're merely reflecting what we're being told by thoe official sources during an ongoing and highly dynamic current event, we have it as right as possible. Sqlman (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is still unacceptably innaccurate and misleading. It would be better not to quote information at all than to display it in such misleading manner. Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's misleading? If the numbers we show here are, it's--again--only because we are quoting the most original, close-to-the-source research we can, and those sources are struggling to keep up. By its very nature, science is a dynamic, ever-evolving beast; the only way to be 100% certain that no "unacceptably inaccurate and misleading" scientific information is ever given out would be to never give out any scientific information, period.Sqlman (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's misleading to tabulate the numbers together because that implies the figures are comparible when they are not. If the figures were each quoted separtely and not compared in this manner I would be OK with them. The idea that they can reasonably compared represents your opinion on this and expressing that opinion in the form of tabulation is original research. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using the word "misleading" as a cause for deletion is opening up an entirely new and potentially "hot" issue, IMO. "Misleading" implies intent to "mislead," or deceive. It implies that whoever is publishing the figures knows they are probably wrong.
One way to deal with this secondary question might be to look at a small example, instead of the world. For example, how should we interpret a news story like this one: "Swine Flu May Have Infected More Than 100,000 Americans"? Would it mean that the CDC is "misleading" the public? Or would it show that reported figures can, according to CDC or government policies, only include actual cases based on clinic tests? If it just points out that even in the U.S. the figures and reporting criteria can be that wild, imagine what they'll be in less developed countries. My hunch is that as the flu spreads during the rest of the year, many countries will rely on estimates instead of U.S. standards, and the data will become more and more innacurate.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This table is quite well referenced, and since it uses almost all sources that are freely available it allows the interested reader to follow up and see what the original source says. BTW, it is annoying when the nominator replies to every single comment; it think each user should mostly give their point of view on the subject once, unless they have something new to add. ike9898 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I felt it necessary to reply to many comments initially as I felt that my concerns were not being addressed in the responses (and I think the issue is important). I did not mean to be annoying. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: There has been some discussion of the totals being original research at WP:NORN, but the nominator's concern had not been brought up there. Would their concerns about original research be dealt with if we only used the figures published by the World Health Organization? (This would removing the suspected cases column, and the figures on intra-country transmissions, but removing these has been repeatedly suggested on the talk page anyway.) -- Avenue (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The table is headed "Detected human cases by country", contains a footnote explaining that many cases will not be found through tests, and specifically provides an estimate of the number of cases in the US (which is two orders of magnitude bigger, yes) for comparison. I think it's clear we are not trying to mislead anyone into thinking the table shows estimated numbers of infections. == Avenue (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is trying to be misleading intentionally. But the table is misleading never the less. I can't think of a way to keep it and for it not to be misleading but you are welcome to look for a way. This would not address the violation of wikipedia:original research, however. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see my question just above, asking about one possible solution to the original research issue? On the issue of whether it could mislead our readers, I agree it does overemphasise the precise counts, which are (a) subject to all sorts of distortions, and (b) not really that important. So yes, I agree some of our readers might get the wrong message from the current version. Can we agree on the general message we think they should get? To me, the important concepts we can present in a summary by country are the geographic spread of the disease, and how intense the outbreak is in different places. And given the limitations of the available data, only rough relativities are meaningful. Would you agree? If so, do you think my recent suggestion (on the template's talk page) of simply listing countries (without figures attached) grouped by the number of confirmed cases would be sensible? -- Avenue (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify or delete per my comments above. I would prefer the table was drastically simplified, not deleted, but I have come to the view that, either way, we would be better off without the current version. The OR issue is not part of the reason for my !vote, however, as I believe any remaining violation of our original research policy is not substantial enough to justify deletion of the entire table. -- Avenue (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the table has had one column removed, so simplification is already underway. The removal of another column looks like it may be gaining consensus on the talk page. If that goes ahead, my !vote would become a keep. -- Avenue (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I don't really what you mean by 'compared'. The numbers are not being compared so much as being added together. The article itself, 2009 swine flu outbreak, is chronicling the reporting and spread (both verified and perceived) of this outbreak. The article is, in effect, following the testing and reporting of a new disease, part of the spread is that different areas have different testing capabilities. If the article can exist without perfect information then so can the table. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This template is very important for the article. In addition, the so-called original research violation has not been stated; there is none. No reason for delete, many for keep, so keep. MC10 | Sign here! 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The definitions in the table are pretty clear and the discussion of the CDC numbers can take place in the text. The issue of OR has been discussed extensively on the talk page and the general consensus - note here also - is that addition of reliable sources is ok. Regardless of these arguments there is no way this table should be deleted, the discussion is over what is in the table. |→ Spaully₪† 20:55, 25 May 2009 (GMT)
  • Keep The purpose of the template is clear and widely use, so we should certainly have it. The issue of the nominator is only on content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this template is very easy to understand, and it is being updated quite often. Some numbers may be false, but there is a column for the exact WHO totals. Most of the advanced graphs are hidden. Notelitten (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close TFD wp:snowball 10 keeps, 2 deletes after 4 days and 2 TFDs --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the claim in those links is that there are lots more cases than are being detected. This table lists detected cases, and is well referenced for that. There's probably some validity in a claim of synthesis for the totals, but that can be sorted out in template talk without deletion. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot see any OR issues in here. And regarding a potential misleading: one should be aware, that there is no reliable information in the context of such an event at all. The official numbers are one thing, definitly worthy to be traced. Estimates like the mentioned 100.000 are another. BTW, what are these estimates based on besides the - admittedly professional - opinion of singular researchers? Anybody, who wants to get a real picture has to ingest all kind of different informations, and this template is a very helpful tool for a part of that. And the estimates (being something different than probable or suspected cases, terms, which have been defined by WHO) are worthy to be kept, too, as a different dimension to a very complex phenomenon. FHessel (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update The table has been substantially simplified. Are there still objections now to keep it and close TFD? This table is the only public source, which offers comprehensive and reliable up to date information about this pandemic. Every single other source is either giving only selected information or lagging behind. It is noticable more and more, that WP (i.e. this table) is cited e.g. in Blogs which are offering the most up-to-date information. Does anybody really want to discard that? FHessel (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I don't agree that the table is "very misleading." It seems to be that most of the complaints are centered around the estimated cases but I believe that in the long run imperfect estimates on both cases and deaths will be very beneficial to the articles that contain this chart. This tables like this are used by both the WHO and the CDC because they are useful even if there are some short comings so I strongly disagree with deleting the article and would prefer that it be allowed to continue and be improved. Daveonwiki (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barnaby's arguments are absurd.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (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:Kranti Kanade[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kranti Kanade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

completely superfluous. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - isn't this WP:CSD#T2, it just can be used in 1 article. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst into Kranti Kanade and delete as a single-article template. Persondata, categories, stub tags, and interwiki links—in that order—should be added to the bottoms of articles directly rather than indirectly by transcluding a template. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've moved across the persondata and the relevant categories, there's no need to keep this. Robofish (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2009 (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:NoMultiLicense[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Garion96 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terms of service conflict. The GFDL statement that must agree with to contribute to Wikipedia makes it clear that it will be 1.2 or any later version. People that have contributed have already agreed to license their text under the GFDL and any later version of it, and they cannot stop any dual-licensing changes as implemented by 1.3 because it is codified in what they agreed to. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to what ViperSnake151 has said, my reading of this permission template is that it would allow relicensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0 despite the plain language opposing it. The text as stated doesn't conflict with "GFDL 1.2 or any later version" terms, and GFDL 1.3, a later version, explicitly grants a right to relicense under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later. Between this implementational flaw and the fact that users have, in fact, irrevocably licensed their contributions under GFDL 1.2 or later - "irrevocable" obviously trumping an attempt to revoke the license - it's best to cut this off at the knees. In the meantime, I haven't actually looked at the contributions of the editors transcluding this; we might be able to grant some users' requests not to migrate their contributions by deleting them, but we shouldn't damage the encyclopedia to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so what will we do when the double license be implemented? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there are a couple of ideas in the Village pump. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To repost: I believe a sufficiently non-explody way to do this would be to change "GFDL" to "the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright terms" in the template, and notify the template's users that it has been changed. But also, given that it has no legal effect anyway, I would be okay with simply deleting it. rspεεr (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but update As far as I can tell, this template was never intended to say anything other than "My contributions are under Wikipedia's license (GFDL) only, I do not support Wikipedia:Multi-licensing"; it existed long before the current relicensing was even possible, and thus I believe the nominating rationale is misrepresenting the situation. On June 15 when the license change becomes official, this template should be changed to reflect the new licensing (I like Rspeer's suggested wording). There is no need to delete it, just to update it so it can continue to serve its intended purpose.
    Also, well before June 15, the people using the template should be informed of the change in case they somehow missed it, and informed that if they actually oppose the upcoming license change then we regret that they will no longer be contributing to the project. But that's not a matter for TFD, which is why we have the discussion at WP:VPP. Anomie⚔ 00:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anomie. I came here intending to vote delete but his reasoning is sound. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anomie. — Aldaron • T/C 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe in giving new reasons -- but this seems to cover it. Collect (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (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:Draconian[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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete (G7) --Magioladitis (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

That template was created by me, but have few links and I think is not usefull to show at few pages. Cannibaloki 01:43, 24 May 2009 (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 Album2[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Album2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox Album}}, intended only to add the field "Cover art", which discussion on the main talk page indicates as inappropriate for this type of infobox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a duplicate of an existing template. Even if there was consensus to include the field "cover art", which there clearly isn't (see Template talk:Infobox Album#Cover artwork artist), there is no need to create a fork of a template just to propose minor modifications to it. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely no previous consensus for creating a duplicate infobox just to include another field. GripTheHusk (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace of creator. It seems that he created it to test his idea so deleting it would not be the answer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:04, 24 May 2009 (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:Campaignbox-191 Maryland Campaign[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox-191 Maryland Campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a campaignbox for a fictional military campaign. As a template with only one blue link, it cannot be useful for navigation. In addition, consensus—as reflected in the Manual of Style guideline for writing about fiction—is that "templates should not invite the creation of articles about non-notable subjects", which this template definitely does. Delete. (Template creator notified using {{tfdnotice}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused, and everything takes place in a single book anyways. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the main article itself is red link. 71.165.197.22 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2009 (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:Cheezburgr[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Garion96 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suppose that this template was created in good fun, but are we to have "WikiLove" templates for every food? Category:Foods has a lot of members... Subst and delete (per WP:ENC) as redundant to a host of other WikiLove templates which, if nothing else, at least use English. (Template creator notified using {{tfdnotice}}.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No delete plz, oh hai, we can no speak native speak on teh Wikis even teh space of talk? ViperSnake151  Talk  02:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete plz (Keep!), The lolcat Cheezburger isn't merely a random, redundant food item added to the Wikilove templates, it is the Iconic foodstuff that turned lolcat into an internet sensation: Lolcat history. This is such a notable foodstuff, it has its own article: I Can Has Cheezburger?. It's the first thing young kittens see when using the lolcat translator. Who among us can resist that plaintive cry, "I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?" Strong keep! Dreadstar † 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheezburugerers are a good thing! This is no different than any of the other fun templates that give hugs, fishes, kisses, or any number of other ways to give props to fellow editors. They promote friendship and community, and are an integral part of the friendly atmosphere that is important to thousands of editors. Keep the template. Ariel♥Gold 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I iz luv da cheezburger template. Its funny and cheerful, based on a notable phenomena like it or not, and as useful as any other wikiluv template. No, its not "English" but is not supposed to be, that's its charm .... and since its not an article "good English" is not required or in this case even desired. Can there be too many wikilove templates? I iz don sink so.(olive (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I guess I am very surprised that this template has spawned concern. There are many such templates used on Wikipedia funny and otherwise that help create and provide a positive environment for its editors. I can also understand that some users don't find this template funny. There are many I don't find funny either. Wikipedia is a really big place so I don't have to look at the ones I don't like. I can handle "funny" I don't think is funny, because I don't hold the patent on what's funny and supportive for some people and what's not. Nor is this template inherently obscene or offensive. If we delete this, will we delete other templates on Wikipedia, because they're funny? Remember, a funny template does not a non-serious editor make. Seems like we should lighten up a little. (olive (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. As the template's subject - "I can haz cheezburgr" - has a history behind it associated with the long-running meme, the template is unique and thus not redundant.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, waste of template space. Grow up. Nakon 01:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support userfy. Nakon 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - Simple solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - does no harm, but is probably better off in userspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, no harm at all and is entertaining, like many other templates, and has a history with Internet lore. I do not find the delete/userfy arguments convincing at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikipedia:Userfication#Template_namespace_content “If only one editor makes use of a userbox, consider moving that userbox to a sub userpage of that user". Way more than one person uses this template. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: is silly, but not against policy or in any way harmful to Wikipedia. Heck, I'd not complain if someone left one of these on my talk. If necessary, userfy, though I'd prefer not to per Rlevse. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though really, I don't think the arguments on the top of the page written in lolspeak are helping the case any, and would encourage the writers to consider writing arguments in normal English. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of its charm is its mauling of the language ... WP surely has room for such, and I do not see any actual real grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a pox upon those here with no sense of humor. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:57, 28 May 2009 (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:Dancing with the Stars - Champions[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dancing with the Stars - Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template duplicates the "Celebrity champions" row of {{DancingwiththeStars(US)}}. It is redundant to the more comprehensive template and the presence of both templates has led to cases where there are two "Dancing With the Stars" templates on a single article. Delete. (Template creator notified using {{tfdnotice}}.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, there no information in this template that's not already provided by the more comprehensive template, and it is not done in the standard template colors, making it visually disturbing when combined with the other blue template. (Of course that's a personal opinion, but that yellow/orange is horrid.) Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was trying to make a shorter template navbox that is easier to navigate because big template navboxes are horrendously bad for flow. I think this is the perfect opportunity to revamp wikipedia's standards for navbox templates in terms of length and size like the size of articles. I say keep it because the main template is chalked full of stuff and needs to be reduced to be more manageable in size. I will gladly change the color of the navbox if it is to be kept, and make it uniform with wikipedia's standard blue. DanceAuthority 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On another note, not about this but about flags and colors of navboxes in general. I was surfing wikipedia and came accross Benjamin Netanyahu's page that has navboxes with flags on it, and don't you think this needs to be address as decorative elements. Also, I was looking at Stephen Harper's and the navboxes are in white with the maple leaf which is a tad bit excessive. So, I would like to see if these can't be addressed at the same time to get them into wikipedia's standards. DanceAuthority 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that the main template is really that long, and I just removed the biggest section: "Ballroom & Latin Dances". As for the use of flags and national symbols in templates, the Manual of Style discourages use of icons "for exclusively decorative purposes", and I agree with you that there is an overuse of icons in these Netanyahu and Harper articles. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The is absolutely no reason to be redundant to the main DWTS template, and it, being collapsed by defult, is not too big. Reywas92Talk 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at it again, it is most definitely not too big. In fact, it could simply be made smaller by merging some of the rows, like the current/past hosts. I see this as having plenty of navigation value without the size limiting anything. If you really want to split it up, then have both the dancers and celebrities in the subtemplate. If this is too big, then that's too small. Reywas92Talk 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go Ahead and DELETE: Thanks for bringing this to my attention! DanceAuthority 16:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BIG KEEP: I think the DWTS navbox violates wikipedia's standards for having to much excessive content in a navbox like the rule says which I am copying here:
    'They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider:

Split them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic. For example, {{EMD diesels}} lists all models of diesel locomotives built by one manufacturer, but is too large to be transcluded on each of their articles. Instead, the individual sections of {{EMD diesels}} were split out into their own templates: {{EMD GPs}}, {{EMD SDs}}, etc.'
! DanceAuthority 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All I am trying to do is to replace the big one with many small ones that are more cogent and meaningful! DanceAuthority 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it appears you've voted twice now. Reywas92Talk 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - redundant to the bigger template, which I don't think is too big for use on these articles. Robofish (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2009 (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:Da[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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep at this time, with no prejudice to any further discussion that results in consolidation/redirection. JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template buggery. How hard is it to just type (Danish) instead of {{Da}}? Does this really need to exist? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In its default state, the template duplicates {{da icon}}; in fact, it transcludes the language icon template. With the lone parameter activated, it autogenerates the text "Danish:" in bold font, which seems to duplicate (with the exception of the bold font) the function of {{lang-da}}. Perhaps this type of template could actually supersede and replace the existing language icon (e.g. {{da icon}}) and multilingual support (e.g. {{lang-da}}) templates? –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the ISO language code for Danish. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, but why is that a reason to keep the template? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{da icon}}. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Redirect {{da li}} to here. There are corresponding {{En}}, {{De li}}, etc. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the question of necessity raised by the nom, the question of redundancy with {{da icon}} and {{lang-da}} raised by me, or the suggestion of consolidating all three templates? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like the stalled discussion regarding consolidating these templates is here Template_talk:Languageicon. Currently {{Da}} and {{sv}} as well as the templates listed above are used in references, where susinctness is a virtue. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the link. I suppose it makes sense that a decision to consolidate several hundred templates should be a result of a centralized discussion somewhere... WP:CENT, maybe (a discussion there is likely to get more attention than one on a template talk page). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending formation of a general consensus about what to do about these language icon templates. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_24&oldid=1140109574"