Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10

[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 per author request. JamieS93 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I assure you I am trying to act in good faith. I just voted to keep the article. But every article does not a template merit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn, I'm a little new to templates here. Is there a way to reproduce some body of wikitext without putting it into a template? Or is that the only way mediawiki does things? Richmondian (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly an expert myself, sorry. But as far as I can see, the only other way to group this info would be a category, which given the small size, probably would be deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like just because its a template doesn't raise its importance, it is just helpful for making an element that might appear on > 1 page? It looks nice and compact, I've seen articles with some really unweildy lists on them. Richmondian (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep template is connected to article, and I will expand it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's too connected to the article. It's merely a snazy, unwarranted duplication. If you want to work on it, consider creating a sandbox version. Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pantherskin. The list is better-suited to the same purpose, the template doesn't allow for sources (which would probably be necessary, given the contentious nature of the topic). Huon (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Whaw, this is like "deja vu" all over again. When, finally (?) we have managed to keep template + list of Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948, we get the same arguments for deletion (from some of the same editors) about this template. Whatever; this *is* a most notable subject, whether you like it or not. To complain about lots of red links when the template is just made, is really not fair. It´s a work in progress, (except that some obviously don´t want it to be any progress in this area on wp.) And a template is much better than a list to navigate by. (I know: I "live" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War on wp myself) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is little coverage of this topic in reliable sources, and no evidence that the villages are notable or need separate articles. The template appears to be an attempt to extend the battleground of the Arab-Israeli conflict on to Wikipedia using an advocacy organization (BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights) as the sole source for this list, a list which the unreliable source itself refers to as "a list of the abandoned villages in the Golan Heights area which have been declared as closed areas by Order no. 39", not as "towns and villages destroyed by Israel". The lead section makes this clear: "Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the area during the conflict. An armistice line was established and the region came under Israeli military control." Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abent notability of any given village, this is a red-link haven. It also, however, hits into an area which has been the topic of ArbCom rulings concerning trying, in some small way, to keep clear advocacy out of any articles regarding that geographical area. (Note: no actual geographical terms were killed in the phrasing of that sentence). Collect (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not for any political reason or because of lack of reliable sources (which is really more an issue for the articles than for a navigation template), but because there aren't enough existing articles linked in this for a useful navbox. It is almost entirely redlinks. This makes it very different from a template like {{Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War}}, which has dozens of existing articles linked. No objection to reviving it later if/when more of the articles are created. --RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability and sources have not been verified. Nice redlink farm. Shlomke (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—most of the localities on the list are not villages, but farms and such. Even if someone managed to create an article on each of them, they'd be deleted for being non-notable. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Red link farm... navboxesshould link articles that actually exist. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no need for it, since almost none of the links work. If a substantial number of the links become articles, then it would be reasonable to put back. That's unlikely. In the meantime, it should be no hardship for whoever produced it to keep a copy handy in their own user space. But having it as a template is effectively just a way to give a large list of otherwise unusable names, in a place where they don't add anything to the article. It just makes the article look even more like WP:POINT. I'm sympathetic to having the articles in at least some cases; but not if they comes across as WP:POINT. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up the template, remove it! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 13 November 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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary labeling template which would only lead to further division if used in discussions. Regards SoWhy 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, a deletionist wants to delete this?
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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USRep succession box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's an unused redirect. All transclusions have been replaced by direct calls. Bazj (talk) 09:57, 10 November 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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AbortionDebate-horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abortion law sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AbortionMethods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abortion methods horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abortion by country sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abortion methods sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Dup to {{Abortion}}, a much more comprehensive and unobstructive footer template, which is standardized using {{Navbox}}. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footers are preferable IMHO, as sidebars screw up the style formatting of the page, pushing text around, and location of placement often causes conflict in and of itself. The {{Navbox}} format is very widely accepted, and helps to improve standardization. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cirt, I suggest Template:Abortion methods sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) would also be incuded in this debate.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my objection to this deletion. Severa, the user who originally created the sidebars, has retired from Wikipedia.[2] One horizontal navbox at the bottom should be easier to maintain than several sidebars.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judging from Mathematosis, this appears to be a neologism, and a catch-all term for a huge variety of conceivable content gripes with a math article, mixed in with an accusation of arrogance. Violates WP:CIVIL, and unlikely to be used. RayTalk 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD (Miscellaneous for deletion) is the one for essays like that in wikipedia space. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might set up a 'This editor suffers from Mathematosis' userbox for myself sometime. I find some things quite difficult but I'd like to give the impression things occur to me full formed whilst I'm lying down daydreaming ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But this template is not a "more specific" refinement of any existing cleanup templates. In fact, it does not refer to any established Wikipedia guideline or policy. Usage in the mainspace (for which the template is clearly intended) is thoroughly inappropriate. And even if it were a more specific refinement, why does that necessarily imply a default position of "strong keep"? Le Docteur (talk) 22:23, 10 November 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.