Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 4 June 6 >

Contents

[edit] June 5

[edit] Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK)

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is a copy of Template:Big Brother housemates. The only difference between the actual template and this template is users have modified this template to work exclusively with Big Brother 2008 (UK). This template is not needed as every function of this template can be done using Template:Big Brother housemates. All other articles in progress currently use Template:Big Brother housemates and Big Brother 2008 (UK) is no exception. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - not only redundant to an existing template, but extremely premature. The show only started two days ago, do we really need articles for all the separate housemates already? This template implies that we do, which seems entirely wrong to me. Terraxos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alucard. John Hayestalk 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Image-license

Template:Image-license (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The template wasn't simply for standardization, it also provided machne-readable data about licenses for tools like User:zocky/Picture Popups. If that functionality is duplicated in the new template, then delete, otherwise fix the new template to provide the same information, and then delete. Zocky | picture popups 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I would drop a note for User:Davidgothberg regarding the machine-readability part, as {{imbox}} is largely his doing. I don't know if he incorporated such things or not. I do know that practically every license template has been updated to use it though. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Image-license-fairuse

Template:Image-license-fairuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bbblock

Template:Bbblock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for or how to request unblock. It is returned here from an extended DRV after parties indicated the prior 10 day TfD was insufficient notice. MBisanz talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Has been widely used, though hard to track due to it being a template that is designed to be subst'd. I use this template all the time. The user warnings project is not policy, and many styles of templates exist. As for some of the nomination specifics: "The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for", the template clearly says that the block is "for vandalism of Wikipedia.". As for giving the templated person more information, it also contains links to the person placing the message, and the blocking policy. — xaosflux Talk 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I mean there are no wiki links to what vandalism is at Wikipedia or how long they are blocked for. MBisanz talk 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I just updated the template, it now contains links to what wiki vandalism is, AND the current users's block log. — xaosflux Talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We've kept several "non standard" template messages like this in the past (such as the older "test templates"). -- Ned Scott 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • delete We should decrease the number of forks of blocking templates, as they should be as standardized as possible. And what does "bb" stand for? "Bad boy"? if so, then it should be speedy deleted. →AzaToth 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • One might assume it stands for "blackbox block" according to the edit summary of the template creator, and in that it has the image of a black box on it. — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Consider for instance that you had been blocked for vandalism and you notice this template. Lets say you want to know more about Black box but you find it rather ambiguous. Is that the impression we want to give when using the template? A blocking template should be concise, to the point and informative. I don't get this when viewing the template. But thats just me. — MaggotSyn 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the name only appears misleading, I don't see a particular use for it when we have other block templates for this specific purpose. I agree we should standardize and there has to be a line in the sand "somewhere" so why not here? — MaggotSyn 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mo icon

Template:Mo icon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I believe this template should be deleted because language templates here should serve a linguistic and not a political purpose. I will not deny that Moldova, as per its constitution, declares that the Moldovan language is official there. However, from a linguistic point of view, that does not make Moldovan a separate language. While it's legitimate for us to have a "Moldovan language" article, it is not, I believe, our duty to accommodate that particular viewpoint by declaring certain documents, written in Romanian, to in fact be in Moldovan. If you don't take my word that the two languages are the same, here are some quotes to back me up (note that Moldovan is now written in the Latin script as well):

  • "The notion of 'Moldovan' language exists only politically and bears no more linguistic meaning than the 'Austrian' or 'American' languages". Maximilian Spinner, Civil War and Ethnic Conflict in Post-Soviet Moldova, p.5.
  • "The 'Moldovan' language is essentially Romanian, a Romance language, written in the Latin script until the Russians imposed their alphabet after taking over in 1940". Michael E. Brown, The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, p.113.
  • "The Moldovan language is Romanian". James Minahan, Miniature empires, p.276.
  • "To underscore the separateness between Romanians and Moldovans the Soviets mandated that the Moldovan language, indistinguishable in its spoken form from Romanian, be written in the Cyrillic alphabet". Bernard A. Cook, Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, p.296.
  • "The 1989 Moldovan language law made Moldovan (Romanian) the state language and restored the Latin alphabet". Alexei Arbatov, Russia and the West: The 21st Century Security Environment, p.133.
  • "Linguists in both countries agree that Romanian and Moldovan are essentially the same language". Tanja Schultz, Katrin Kirchhoff, Multilingual Speech Processing, p.7.

Again, I see this as a solely linguistic question; since the languages are the same, we should use only one template, while of course recognising in the relevant articles that Moldova calls the language by a different name.— Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy delete good proposal.--Flueras (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(user blocked as sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte) Khoikhoi 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment it depends on where it's used. It might be useful if it was only used to identify text written in Cyrillic during the Communist era -- that would definitely serve a linguistic purpose (and it would be informative, e.g. if a document is written both in Cyrillic and in Latin characters then I'd like to know the distinction as to click on the [ro] icon instead of the [mo] icon). However, for text written in Latin characters it's superfluous, as it doesn't bring any information to the reader. --Gutza T T+ 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, or documents from Transnistria today. It's a good point you make - but in practice, the template is used only for Latin texts, and is ripe for revert wars and accusations of POV-pushing if we change it to Romanian. Maybe one solution would be to delete this and have a new (Moldovan Cyrillic) template? Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- there's no way to differentiate between written "Moldovan" and Romanian, this term and template is used only to make a political point. No serious linguist accepts the idea that Moldovan is different than Romanian, however politicians did use the term, but by no means the term is used by everybody in Moldova to name the language they speak. As further proof even Moldovan declaration of independence called the official language "Romanian". AdrianTM (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template is one of many that follow the format of {{languageicon}}. These templates use the ISO 639 Language codes, and ISO 639 has separate entries for Romanian and Moldavian (sp) languages. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, there is an ISO code, but nobody can tell them apart. How does one decide which icon to use? Given that, what's the logic of choosing one instead of the other, since the reader gathers no information from that choice? This is like trying to label text "NZ" vs. "AU", even assuming they did have ISO codes associated -- how could you tell which is which, and what information is being conveyed to the reader by the choice between the two templates? --Gutza TT+ 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    To add to Gutza's point: if you look here, based on the fact that it's called "Moldavian" and written in Cyrillic, it becomes clear that the code refers to the Soviet-era and Transnistrian "language", not that used in Moldova today (which is Latin script). So I wouldn't have a problem if this template, or a (Moldovan Cyrillic) one, were being used for Soviet and Transnistrian documents. What is a problem is that currently, it is being used for Latin script texts. And if I start replacing those usages with (Romanian), I fear the start of more revert-warring, despite this being a technical, not a political issue. Biruitorul Talk 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Since the difference between them is political, I use it to choose the template: If the source explicitly says that it's in Moldovan then I use the mo icon template, otherwise default to ro icon. I understand that the usage of the term "Moldovan" is going to be governmentally enforced in autumn, therefore I believe that the usage of mo icon is justified, because Wikipedia can't tell governments which language name to use - it's usually the other way around. Now, the article Moldovan language, on the other hand, can explain that it's just another name, purely political etc. --Illythr (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    A government can decree that another language exists (as has happened in Moldova), but if the languages are still the same, then it's not incumbent upon us to recognise the "new language" as being separate. I suppose the closest analogy would be Serbo-Croatian, but even there, the differences (perhaps exaggerated) between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are large enough to warrant an article - something that would not be possible for Moldovan (the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary aside). The point is: historians and linguists - the experts - consider the two to be the same, and while our article on the Moldovan language serves to point out the fact that it has another name in Moldova, I believe, for the reasons outlined above, that documents written in this language, acknowledged by experts to be the same as Romanian, should be labelled as such, particularly given the edit-warring possibilities. However, as I have stated, I would also be willing to use the "Moldovan" label for texts in Cyrillic. Biruitorul Talk 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Illythr, I can understand how you've reached this position, but I have below few thoughts about when it's wrong to use a political criterion on technical things, even if the criterion addresses them. adriatikus | talk 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Upon further consideration I tend to agree with Biruitorul -- as it stands, this template is calling for trouble (edit wars and endless debates on whether a particular source is RO or MD). It's easy to imagine a Moldovan author who becomes successful and moves to Romania -- or vice-versa, a successful Romanian author who moves back to his home town in Moldova -- think of the pointless edit warring ("he's not longer writing in Moldovan, since he lives in Romania" -- "nonsense, his style hasn't changed one bit, he's still writing in Moldovan", and so on). --Gutza T T+ 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hehe, good point. :-) --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Saying a website that states is written in Moldovan is written in Romania would be original research, unacceptable for Wikipedia. When the language is not explicitely mentioned, we should use both language icons for Moldovan websites.Xasha (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This reply is the first one written in Maka-maka language on this web page. Please ask and admin to warn or ban me for not using the English language when posting on WP. Thank you (the end of the Maka-maka language text) adriatikus | talk 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The comment above, and the one below, show that supporters of deletion have no respect for Wikipedia policies, and all they want is to impose their personal view, even if that means violating WP:OR and WP:FORUM.Xasha (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not about WP. It's about not losing common sense. As about you shifting to general guidelines (that's metadiscourse, my dear, dribbling argumentation) instead of giving a single objective counterargument, I suppose it means you have none. adriatikus | talk 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: There was also an easier way to respond: your two rules are actually one, and it's about articles, not talk pages. But let's keep the subject in focus, don't we? adriatikus | talk 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
PS2: Oh, if you miss a ban, keep generalizing. adriatikus | talk 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This template appears only in articles, so WP:OR applies. What you're doing here is also discouraged per WP:FORUM (read the "Discussion forum" part) and WP:SOAP.Xasha (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I did. I'm right. BTW, you're only replying to post scriptum. adriatikus | talk 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly, we are not talking about the colloquial spoken language, or the local varieties (we have no tags for Texan American English, or British English). So a Mo icon would be linked to the standard Moldovan language. The standard language in the Rep. of Moldova in regulated by the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, which not only calls the language Romanian, but it has addopted the orthographic rules of the standard Romanian language as they were published by the Romanian Academy [1]. This means that there wouldn't be a scientific criterion by which a text to be labeled Mo or Ro. Thus we have a language, called by linguists Romanian, and by the current government of Moldova Moldovan. I understand the right of every state to give what law it pleases, but if I go to Chişinău then it means that "by law" any valid sentence I would pronounce in Bucharest would automatically become spoken in another language. There may be some arguing that there are similar cases when the same thing, like e.g. a place name, is differently named in different languages. How is that thing named in WP? By its internationally recognized name. I think the world has nothing to do with the nightmares of the Moldovan Communists, nor their laws are automatically standards. So we have a thing, named by linguists Romanian language, and known as such by the world. Should we trust Voronin claims [2]? adriatikus | talk 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the only reason that would sustain using Mo icon is the legislation of Moldova, let me propose a thought experiment: let's suppose we're back in time, about 70 years ago. What would be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jews who want to edit Germany related articles, since there was a law given by a democratically elected administration forbidding Jews the right to teach Arian children? There are 3 reasons I'm proposing this thought experiment:
  1. law systems are not absolute reference points by themselves; the law has to have a rational judgment supporting it;
  2. something absurd enforced (the 'Moldovan language' name seems to be enforced by law from autumn) by a government which is democratically elected automatically has its supporters - what I mean is truth and right judgment aren't matters to vote for;
  3. the situation resembles what's happening in Moldova: social/ethnic engineering by trying to "scientifically prove" and "enforce by law" a thesis that fits the rulers;
adriatikus | talk 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you think what I say is not NPOV, then read this page from the Jamestown Foundation about the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies". No wonder they fit the above example, coincidentia oppositorum after all. adriatikus | talk 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outside the scope of wikipedia, more than 10 articles are using it. →AzaToth 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_13#Template:Infobox_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted - Previous discussion have already said Keep and I affirm this. This is a spam TFD. As far as the number of articles, it just a matter of cataloging all the criminals that ever been on the list. Azatoth should take the initiative of doing this if there is too little "inclusion" and it says "Top Ten". There are only usually 10 people on the list and the template gets replaced once they are removed. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Very, very useful template, which really can't be replaced. Reverend X (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Sextet Organization

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 debate was already speedy deleted by Werdna under criterion G6 (housekeeping) — Gavia immer (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Sextet Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No content whatsoever. In a series of pointless creations by user:Maxie martin Bit Lordy (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Template:Needsinfobox

Template:Needsinfobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I created this back in 2004(!) for use in WikiProject Albums; it's now superseded by a parameter in the {{album}} template. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Needsinfobox shows only project and talk pages linked to it. — Catherine\talk 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Comment: When using the needs-infobox parameter in {{WPBeatles}}, {{Needsinfobox}} is added under the banner instead of using one-line {{WPBannerMeta}} version. Sole example I could find is Talk:Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father. Not sure how to fix that. I've suggested a conversion at Template talk:WPBeatles. --Geniac (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Damaged

Template:Damaged (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Discourages reparative edits and contradicts the spirit of being bold. If a prior revision of an article is in fact superior to its current revision, then that article should be reverted to the prior revision, not tagged. — Groupthink (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete with flamethrower. MBisanz talk 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: In the time it takes to add the template, you can usually revert any vandalism. The encouragement that this template uses should be focused on improving the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I created this template after viewing the article on MOVE, in which several cycles of very severe deletions removed most of the content except what songs to buy. It was easier to tag this article than fix it, because there were several versions in the history with different interesting content, inline references were deleted before the rest of the content, and useful information was added after each of the large deletions. Moreover, the tag serves to identify a content dispute rather than solely serve as a reversion to a previous version - i.e. it is intended to allow someone reading the article to know that there's a good version in the history, hopefully without having to win a revert war with the person who deleted the information to start with. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Firstly, much better templates for dealing with disputed content already exist. Secondly, consensus, not templates, is supposed to determine whether or not a version of an article is "good". Tagging articles rather than fixing them might be easy, but it is also counter-productive. Thirdly, there are other, superior methods for dealing with "revert wars." Indeed, this template fuels rather than discourages edit warring by giving angry mastodons the means to make an end-run around discussion and consensus-building. The message of this template is: "I don't like the current version of this article, but rather than work to improve it, I'm just going to point out a previous version and call the whole thing 'damaged'." Do we really want to encourage such hit-and-run behavior? Groupthink (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: This template is all wrong. Fix the article if you can. If you can't, then the template doesn't help. It really reads like an editor throwing up his hands in disgust and inserting an official protest against an article within the article itself. You might as well blank the page, or insert a "this article sucks" template (though that, of course, would be vandalism and might require an aditional template to point out the fact). Meanwhile, end users who come to an article looking for information are not going to be pleased with a disclamer or qualification to explain why they can't get the information they want. The more templates there are like this, the more they make the whole of Wikipedia look bad. zadignose (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually the purpose was to alert end users that they can get the information they want from the History. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    ...which will inevitably prompt the end-user to inquire, "Why am I having to delve into archives? Why isn't this information in the article?" thus undermining Wikipedia's credibility. Forgive me if this is an obtuse question, but if there's information in an article's history supported by a valid source, why not just put that information into the article?!? Groupthink (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically seems like a way for someone unhappy with the consensus on an article to say 'this is m:The Wrong Version, click here to see the right one'. For obvious reasons, that's not an approach we should support. I understand this was created in good faith, but it seems that 99% of the time it will be badly used. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This orphaned template, as far as I can tell only has had one article that it was placed on. The information it might convey is better stated in the lede and body of the article, hence the template is superfluous. Probably better suited as a category, not as a temporal template that takes up prime space at the top of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems unnecessarily specific for a template, and doesn't convey any useful information that couldn't be presented in the lede. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ongoing event

Template:Ongoing event (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template substantially copies the functionality of {{current}}. It is orphaned. Basically superfluous. Tens or hundreds of thousands of ongoing events, activities and natural process have an article on wikipedia, from legislatures, campaigns for political office, the lives of all living persons, sessions of any legislative or diplomatic activity, wars, and on and on. Just about all of wikipedia that is about a living or active event would apply. This is unremarkable and does not need a template to say what should be in the lede or body of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - redundant to {{current}}. Terraxos (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously redundant. It is also orphaned in article namespace. --Kildor (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{current}}. Why delete and leave somebody who remembers this name stranded? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current territorial changes

Template:Current territorial changes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An orphaned template for a fairly rare and slow-moving occurance: territorial changes of some governmental entity. Superfluous, as appropriate information can be placed in the text of the article in a suitable section without taking up a prime area at the head of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • delete the event it was needed for has long past. It would need to be redone for the next event in Sachsen on the 1.08.2008, But we have enaugh time this year to prepare text in advance. Agathoclea (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, this is simply not the kind of event that needs a 'current-related' template. Terraxos (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current football season

Template:Current football season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template substantially duplicates the fuctionality of {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}}. Another example of needless temporal template proliferation. In the last month or two, a number of other templates that copied the functionality of {{current sport}} have been reveiwed and deleted:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_19#Template:Current tennis tournament
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current sport delay
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current PW
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_29#Template:current motor sport

— Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This template was created because the {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}} feature a soccer ball and clock icon which have nothing to do with American football. There's really nothing wrong with having different templates based on different sports.
  • I note that a changed graphic does not change the fuctionality of the template and its relationship with the source it was copied from, hence my assessement that this is a redundant template. The original template could have an option to substitute a different graphic, if this is considered crucial. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is redundant. If the icon of the current sport template is a problem, take it to its discussion page. --Kildor (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Logos are part of the function; that's why we include them. Do not confuse the reader by suggesting he's at the wrong article. Merger, with a logo index would be useful, but it should not be a precondition. (Renaming to American football would be harmless.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)