Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

Template:ReversionWar

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. Singu larity 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS — this will more likely than not encourage an edit war.. —« ANIMUM » 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beans indeed. Edit wars should not be carried on, and definitely should not be marked to attract more people. --Haemo 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As great as this might be to transclude the Whatlinkshere for this page on WP:AN/3RR, it is definitely a Troll magnet. Stating that the page is currently in an edit war is useless, considering that you can just Rpp or request something on the admin noticeboard. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's the entire purpose of this template? I don't get it. Why would you mark "there are people editwarring over this page"? Why does it benefit the reader, or anyone? Mel sa ran 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't have a purpose other than possibly starting a new edit war over inclusion of the template itself. –sebi 11:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said :) Gracenotes^T § 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a reversion war is going on long enough for this template to be applicable, appropriate responses include:
- Requesting protection for the page
- Reporting 3RR violations
- Initiating mediation or arbitration
Placing a template on the page being warred over is, however, not an appropriate response. As Spebi points out, it may even end up making things worse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:32, 12 August 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 section.

Template:HP School

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. IronGargoyle 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used in only three articles; entirely in-universe information (see WP:WAF). — Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three articles is enough to justify its existence, and the infobox works for a fictional school as it does for a real school, to summarize key facts in a chart format. Shalom ^Hello 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sometimes, not having enough uses isn't enough reason to justify deletion. –sebi 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same reasons as above. -Kenneth Vergil 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as infoboxes are generally intended for real-world content. All information in said box is fictional detail. Also, Hogwarts is the only school which the box can be fully useful for, not much is known about Durmstrang or Beauxbatons. -Christopher
Keep, as per Shalom's reasoning. - Throw 05:21, 15 August 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 section.

Template:NPOV-date

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 boldly redirected to Template:POV (as a duplicate). Mel sa ran 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{pov}}, except for this one has a stop hand, and the other one has a scale.. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:46, 9 August 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 section.

Template:StarCraft storyline

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. Singu larity 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template once listed the StarCraft episode articles. But as those have been deleted, all it does are list the game races and games in the series, which Template:StarCraft already does— The Clawed One 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely redundant due to the existence of Template:StarCraft. -- Sabre 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, poorly organized (links are not uniform). --Kjoonlee 08:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is very poorly organised. *shudders at the "edit this box" link* ;) –sebi 11:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a StarCraft guide. Navigation boxes at the bottom are fine, but this ain't one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 10 August 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 section.

Template:English pseudo-dialects

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. IronGargoyle 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: template was moved to Template:Non-native varieties of English by another user, before deletion. Mike Peel 06:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been nominated before, with a result of "no consensus", but after several edits and reverts I've decided to nominate it again. The only thing these have in common is their names are derived from the word "English". They are actually quite different things: from Greeklish, which is just a system of transliteration for Greek into the Latin alphabet, to Chinglish and Engrish, which consist of errors produced by non-English speakers, to Singlish, which is a genuine creole language distinct from English -- the only example of such in the list. (Incidentally, a lot of the articles linked to from the template appear to consist mostly or entirely of original research.) The template previously also included leet, valspeak and "hip hop slang". These things have nothing to do with each other.

"Pseudo-dialect" is a neologism, and inaccurate (how is Greeklish a dialect or pseudo-dialect of English?). At one point, the template described them as "mixed languages", but that term is used in linguistics for a specific kind of language, which these are not (real-life examples include Michif and Media Lengua). It has also previously called them "pidgins" or "creoles", despite the fact that these are neither pidgins nor creoles (with the exception of Singlish) and that there are a great many real creoles not included on the template. I've changed its title to "Portmanteaux of English and other languages", since that's the only name that seems accurate, but I don't like the existence of this template at all.

The previous nomination failed because a few people thought that it could be renamed or reoranized into something worthwhile. I hope that instead this particular template will be deleted, and new, separate templates created with rational groupings: Singlish with other creoles, Greeklish with other romanization schemes, and so forth. (See Template:Mid-pacific English-based pidgins and creoles for an example of a template with real pidgins and creoles.) — Ptcamn 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: "pseudo-dialect" is not a defined term of linguistics, and the entities on this template have nothing relevant in common. —Angr 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template seems to be collecting various forms of non-native English, which might be relevant in another template, but certainly not under this title. And, as Angr pointed out, "pseudo-dialects" is rather obvious original research. And that Engrish is to be considered even a foreign accent of English is highly questionable. Peter ^Isotalo 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more like gibberish. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove things that are not "varieties of English spoken by non-native speakers", rename template to "Template:Non-native varieties of English", and then keep the template for ease in navigation. Mel sa ran 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ptcamn and Angr. I don't see how it would be possible to rename this, simply because so many of the things listed in the template have almost nothing in common. It seems to me that Melsaran's proposal to remove everything that's not English spoken by non-native speakers is essentially equivalent to Ptcamn's proposal to delete the template altogether and then use several different new templates for the different categories covered by the present template: both have the same eventual outcome. --Miskwito 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on second thought, I'm not sure. The remaining languages in the template are still very different. Yinglish is neologisms used by Yiddish speakers when they speak English, Chinglish is errors produced by Chinese speakers when trying to speak English, and Spanglish is several different things, but generally used by linguists to describe code-switching between English and Spanish. These things still aren't very similar, and "Non-native varieties of English" doesn't really cover them adequately, I don't think. --Miskwito 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, speakers of Yinglish and Spanglish usually are native speakers of English, so those varieties shouldn't be in a template for nonnative varieties. —Angr 10:42, 11 August 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 section.