Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User PCD

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 Deleted by admin Doc glasgow (author's request). Non-admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another userbox with The Pussycat Dolls already created. Merged information of personal userbox with already existing userbox. Requested by author. Chris 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - requested by author. Chris 21:31, 7 January 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 page.

Template:Arsenal

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 Deleted by admin Kusma (content was: '{{db-authora|WP:TFD}}{{tfd|Arsenal}}{{Userbox |border-c =red |border-s = 1 |id-c = white |id-s = 12 |id-fc = red |info-c = ...'). Non-admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly named userbox template, duplicates an existing userbox {{User:BlueSquadronRaven/Userboxes/Arsenal}} and misuses a fair use image. Delete. Qwghlm 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already exists in the userspace. --- RockMFR 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created it because I didn't realise there was one already available! Asics^Talk 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Created by mistake and the author requests deletion. Tagged {{db-authora}}. --ais523 09:48, 11 January 2007 (U T C)

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.

Template:CMUArtsPittsburgh

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 deletion as redundant to category. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a list of alumni of Carnegie Mellon is certainly appropriate, i think having a templated list of artists connected to it is stretching it. Really, there is already a category for CMU alumni, and a page, so this template is redundant. Thethinredline 19:02, 7 January 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 page.

Astronomical coordinate templates

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 deletion of all but EqCoor templates. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the templates above were created by Friendlystar (talk · contribs) at the end of November 2006. They are not used in any article pages; instead, Template:RA and Template:DEC are used. Their functionality is similar to the Template:Coor dms and related templates, however this one points directly to an external site (WikiSky.org) rather than an internal one. A discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects decided against using these templates, and Friendlystar has made no subsequent edits to the templates, or used them on articles. While I believe that the idea behind the templates is worthy, and a system such as coor dms etc. for astronomical objects would be useful to users, I do not believe that this is the correct way to do it. (The template should link to a Wikimedia-hosted disambig link that lets users choose which website they want to use, rather than directly to an external site). As such, I think that these templates should be deleted. Mike Peel 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Template:Galaxy demo as well, as this is a fork of Template:Galaxy that was intended to demonstrate the AstroCoord template. Mike Peel 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The templates are not being used nor are they being actively maintained or edited. Also, based on previous discussions with the crator, I have the sense that some of these templates were "drafts" that he intended to delete later. Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have put request to host the page similar to geohack on Wikimedia back in November 2006. There's no response yet, Admin seems to be very busy recovering data from some serious power/hardware failure in beginning of December. friendlystar 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we can get something like that up and running, then that would be great. However, I still think the above templates should be deleted. First, there is no guarantee that such a system will be set up. Second, if it is set up, then we won't need both sets of templates (and we definitely won't need the galaxy demo page). Third, it would probably be easier just to fork Template:Coor and related templates when necessary, as opposed to modifying the nominated templates to work with the new system. Mike Peel 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use EqCoor* templates, the rest is safe to delete. friendlystar 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that, so long as a warning is placed on the EqCoor templates saying that they are not currently in use, and that Template:RA and Template:DEC should be used instead. We can then migrate over to the EqCoor templates once the geohack-like system is set up. Mike Peel

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.

Template:User serial comma:Usually

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Twas Now/Userbox/serial comma:usually in December 2006. This template is

redundant to another better-designed template
not used

I checked the back logs AND the 11 pages which returned on this Google search (ommitted results included). All of the resulting pages linked to the new template.

Twas Now 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD it. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the RfD criteria, it seems like it's not important whether it is deleted or not. − Twas Now 00:25, 8 January 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 page.

Template:FC Copenhagen

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is copyright violation of the image and is not necessary, as it is only used on one page. ka la ha 10:37, 7 January 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 page.

Template:Infobox Weather 2

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a spin-off of Template:Infobox Weather. A single line option was added to the Infobox Weather to give more visual options. Therefore, this template is completely unnecessary. --MJCdetroit 05:36, 7 January 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 page.

Template:Cvg-workshop-nomination

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated for some time now. Has no incoming links except from a part of WP:CV that has been tagged as historical. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated. --- RockMFR 06:08, 7 January 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 page.

Template:Sobscene

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to imply that Wikipedia is censored- it is not. If someone is vandalizing, the normal vandal templates should be used. The use of profanity when vandalizing does not matter. --- RockMFR 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This implies that obscene vandalism is treated differently than equally egregious(sp?), but non-obscene, vandalism. It isn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and especially Amarkov. --Hab baH 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other templates serve the purpose better.--C J King 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and also adds a concern about WP:BEANS ("whoa, adding provocative pictures? I never thought of THAT!"). I see no need for a separate obscenity warning template. delldot | talk 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom even more this template opens up a platform for politically correct, christian moralistic abuse Arnoutf 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov -- Esurnir 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is also {{Obscene}}. 68.39.174.238 00:55, 8 January 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 page.

Template:Civil2

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 just like civil1. If people are incivil, throwing templates around is not going to help. >Radiant< 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the recently deleted {{civil1}}. When someone is edit warring or being uncivil, throwing a warning on their talk page cannot possibly make the situation better. If kept, highly recommend replacing the stop sign with a smiley face :) ----- RockMFR 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, TfD for Template:civil1, and fact that this is worded in a very inflammatory way for a level 2 warning. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I find this useful when a civil0 won't do. --Hab baH 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to level 3 per SYCTHOS below. --Hab baH 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I've never used this, I'm reluctant to delete it. But I know it won't stay. Xiner (talk, email) 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for new editors template:civil0 is probably enough, experienced editors may learn more from a personal message or won't learn at all. Arnoutf 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template provides a civil way for an offended user to make their feelings known when an uncivil user repeatedly offends - especially if it is a personal, racial or religious attack. If it didn't exist, the offended user might also resort to being uncivil and escalate the conflict. I also suggest keeping the stop sign; add the smiley to Template:civil0 -- Aylahs ^(talk) 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The object of rebuking someone for incivility is to calm them down; so speak nicely but firmly. Boilerplate is never going to do anything other than inflame the situation, and the temptation will always be to use it as a weapon in a personal dispute. If you can't even be bothered writing a real message, then you are certainly NOT the person who is going to successfully steer the offender in the right path. This things isn't going to enhance civility on wikipedia, is it? --Doc^g 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete throwing warning templates on an experienced user's talk page would only heighten the situation. -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as this can become an effective template if used correctly. However, a level 2 template with this type of wording may be too rough. Renaming this to level 3 or level 4 may be more appropriate. --SYCTHOS ^talk 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just used civil3, which apparently has been proposed for deletion too. And I used it quite well. They're useful. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just looked and Civil3 and Civil4 both currently redirect to Civil2. So deleting this will also have the effect of deleting those. --Hab baH 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - there is a problem with trolls using this to escalate a dispute. The threshold for usage is too low, at least with the NPA warnings, a meaningful personal attack should have taken place, however I've seen this template used in response to minor grumpiness. The template can and has been used responsibly, however at the moment, I honestly don't believe it's helping. Addhoc 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everybody already knows that it's nice to be nice. If an editor is uncivil, they need constructive engagement to persuade them to take a different approach. An instruction to be nice is likely to be counterproductive. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have recently had this thrown in my face, not by a person who wished to help, but by an arrogant fool who used it more like bait. Mind you, I consider him a tag noob, appearently he knows how to USE the tags, but he doesn't know WHEN to use them. Upon addressing him, he paints this in my face... This isn't the type of tag you want people to beable to dish out, the welcome to wikipedia is more prudent and nicer than being yelled at by some tag saying that you aren't nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.212 (talk • contribs)
- Um... you aren't nice. You were just blocked not that long ago. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its useful - • The Giant Puffin • 12:37, 8 January 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 page.