Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

April 19, 2006

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 Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notadopted

Template:Notadopted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably a WP:POINT violation. It was created immediatly after the suggestion of a new template here with the same name, and the creation edit summary refers to one of the members of that discussion. Unused according to What Links Here and Google.SeventyThree^(Talk) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it would go nice in the humor section of Userboxes. --Domthedude001 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN, possibly with some context. Morgan Wick 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it just seems useless. - Thepangelinanpost 21:43, 24 April 2006 (EST)

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 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 Keep. —Wh o uk (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future tvshow

Template:Future tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A blatant violation of WP:NOT, it was prodded then removed then I incorrectly marked it as db where it was deleted and then restored so now I'm taking it here to be properly brought up for deletion. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, some articles that use it *might* be a blatant violation of WP:NOT. If they are "What links here?" will be helpful in finding and removing inappropriate speculation. Some regularly scheduled future events are considered worthy inclusion. It's really a matter of looking at each usage of this template, reading the content, and deciding what, if any, fix is needed. Deleting this template, will not fix a single article with a problem. -Rob 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although some of the articles which use this template may be engaged in crystal-balling, the template itself is not. The relevant section of WP:NOT says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I can't vouch for all of the articles which use this template, but I'm sure that there are many individual television episodes which could be described as "almost certain to take place". Whether they are notable is another question, but since the larger issue of whether individual television episodes should have pages is still open, I don't see why an individual episode scheduled to air in two weeks is intrinsically less notable than an individual television episode which aired last month.

Although some pages which use this template may be chronic violators of WP:NOT, that's not the fault of the template. If anything, it's a reason for the template's existence: editors could use it to patrol such pages and make sure that everything in them is factual and appropriately cited.

I also don't see a substantial difference between this template and Template:Future election, Template:Future film or most of the rest of Category:Temporal templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Josiah Rowe, particularly his point about it being used as a trap for unsubstantiated articles. The JPS 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Josiah Rowe. --RayaruB 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Josiah Rowe said it better then I can. Qutezuce 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like a future sporting event template or election template, it reminds Wikipedia's readers that the event in question has not yet happened, and it reminds Wikipedia's writers that they need at least an advertisement for the show with an airdate before writing an article on an upcoming TV show. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very useful marker for providing information about shows which have been made but not yet aired - something which many of us do around here. PaulHammond 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template is needed because of WP:NOT, not despite of it. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles about future, verifiable incidents are acceptable, wheras in a paper encyclopedia they wouldn't be. This template is needed to alert readers that while the article may be enclyopedic (neutral, and verifable by reliable sources) it may be fluid. (Articles containing unverified speculation are another matter, which would fail WP:NOT, but this is outside the control of the template) MartinRe 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above and above, it's needed --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said a few comments above. Is need because of WP:NOT. It is great for tv shows. When it was removed, I saw many articles on my watchlist say a robot removed it because it didn't exist. That never should have happened. This template helps.TeckWiz 00:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. --TM 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it serves as a useful note to readers that the programme in question is yet to be broadcast. While some articles that use it might be crystal balling, the template itself is reasonable. —Wh o uk (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at first sight it conflicts with WP:NOT, but that is exactly what the template is used for. It shows that the article ITSELF is a potential problematic article for an encyclopedia. There are a dozen or more Temporal templates that indicate the same issue. besides that issue, there is some overlap with {{Future TV series}} and {{In-progress tvshow}} but that is something that WP:TV will soon deal with. - The DJ 10:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a warning to the template article page, hopefully it will cause less misuse of the template. Beyond that just afd the articles in question that are problematic? - The DJ 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that articles with this tag have the potential for misuse, and should be eyed carefully and afd'ed if they're crystal-ballish. But I disagree with the suggestion that every article with this tag is by its very nature unencyclopedic; for example, see the relatively well-cited Torchwood, which has been the subject of discussion in mainstream (non-fan) media. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I suggested anywhere that these articles are by no means encyclopedic in essence then I miscommunicated my thoughts :D - The DJ 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. :D (tips hat to the DJ) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There need to be a way that visitors to this encyclopedia be informed if a television show is currently airing or not. -- Voldemort 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does WP:NOT now say that Wikipedia is not a place for templates marking a show's speculative nature? Homestarmy 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just see no reason to delete it. --Trogdor077 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened a discussion on these temporal television templates and categories. - The DJ 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me this is useful for marking pages that will get created. Some of which will not violate WP:NOT. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 10:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template simply says articles may contain speculative nature. That's harmless when you know so little about something. Royboy crashfan 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josiah Rowe 195.82.123.61 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. --Domthedude001 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with pretty much everything said above. GracieLizzie 23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josiah Rowe. --DavidK93 15:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above espec. Josiah Rowe.. let's get this ugly TfD notice off the template already :-) Mrtea (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like a reasonable enoguh template. - Thepangelinanpost 21:41, 24 April 2006 (EST)
Keep Helpful in cases where foreign shows are airing in another television market. (please see List of Top Gear broadcasters and video releases for an example).--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 00:25, 26 April 2006 (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 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 Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N9jig-il-shield

Template:N9jig-il-shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am the author of this template. Previous discussion consensus was keep 'til we have replacement, "more free" images, and we now do in the commons (see Image:Illinois 1.svg for an example). Also note this should result in automatic deletion of images that use this template... —Rob (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and delete the images once orphaned) --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:37, 19 April 2006 (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 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 Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UN-multilingual

A poll at Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights showed that most people clearly did not want this, so it's been removed from all articles. As it has no use, I'm nominating it for deletion. Raul654 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom -larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 08:30, 20 April 2006 (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 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 keep Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Don't need to have a separate template for each Wikibook. Should use Template:Move to Wikibooks instead. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. --Domthedude001 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? The nom says delete, by default... -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think a lot of the transwiki to wikibooks tags are for recipes, which would make this tag useful. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've either used this or thought of doing so before, so it's useful in my opinion. Ardric47 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, comes up often enough to be useful. the wub "?!" 23:18, 27 April 2006 (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 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 keep and redirect Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Factual

Template:Factual (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serves to alert the reader that some things in the article may not be factual, and might be opinions... which seems to me to really be most of wikipedia. Is there another template instead for 'contested facts'? This one is very new.

Delete Aaronw 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Ok, Redirect is fine. Aaronw 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Template:Not verified. No need to delete, it's a common search (witness the creation of the template). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - The DJ 10:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Royboy crashfan 03:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --Domthedude001 21:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blatantly redirected it as everyone suggested above. 68.39.174.238 02:16, 24 April 2006 (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 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 Keep, no apparent consensus for renaming Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google

Template:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template serves no apparent purpose; only redirects to a completely random and meaningless Google search of the string "{{{1}}}" - this template should be deleted. The template actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Google articles. Kungming2 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It has already survived TFD, and your objection is based solely on not understanding how to use it. {{google|Earth}} produces Earth which is a link to Google results on the search term "Earth", useful for talk page discussions of the prominence or importance of a term. Dragons flight 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but never use in articles, or within templates that might be used in articles. These are usefull to avoid being assaulted with diff views on afd that are three screens wide due to one really long link. — Apr. 19, '06 [02:51] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Understood. A notice should be put on the template page indicating in should only be used within templates and not in articles - also suggest a name change to "Template:Google_search" so as to avoid confusion with Wikipedians (like me) who believe the name "Template:Google" should be used for a template of Google's products and services, or the like. Kungming2 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added usage notes to the template to clear up the misunderstanding. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make it not work in article space? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something conditional on {{NAMESPACE}}? SeventyThree^(Talk) 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Template:Google search as per Kungming2. TheProject 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Template:Google search as per Kungming2. - The DJ 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename same thing as Kung. Homestarmy 00:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to the built-in links to Google. [[google:Earth|Earth]] produces Earth, for example. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed redundant purpose, [[google:Earth|Earth]] produces the same result as {{google}}. Only difference, then is that the former is integrated into MetaWiki and the second is a template, and displays an arrow right next to the link. Both will search identical queries. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful in discussions. Royboy crashfan 03:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. TimBentley (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Royboycrashfan. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename' as above MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. Thepangelinanpost 21:46, 24 April 2006 (EST)
Delete despite nominator's confusion. If you feel the need to refer to a google search, you should at least have carried it out yourself, in which case you already have the URL. the wub "?!" 23:13, 27 April 2006 (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.