Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 26



April 26, 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:India infobox
The infobox is one that is a single-article infobox and recalls another template, just as Template:World War II infobox did.--Brendenhull (talk – edits) | 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete in addition to the nom, this is an orphaned template that is not used on the main India article.--Andrew c 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Andy123  (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --''' MJCdetroit 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:18, 28 April 2006 (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 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Italy infobox
Same as Yugoslavia infobox, single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (talk) | 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This template is also an orphan not used by the main Italy article.--Andrew c 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Andy123  (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --''' MJCdetroit 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:19, 28 April 2006 (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 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia infobox
Single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (talk)


 * Conditional delete. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia still uses this template. If someone changes the infobox to Template:Infobox Country and removes this infobox from the page, then I would accept a delete. If not, then we need to keep this template so the article doesn't break.--Andrew c 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Substitute and delete -- Andy123  (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if reformated and placed inside article. That infobox needs some work.  I don't think the Template:Infobox Country will work because the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer exists.  Therefore, there is no current data.&mdash;MJCdetroit 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I converted it to use Infobox Country. The content should be kept, whether in the template or not. --Joy &#91;shallot] 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, because Joy converted it. thanks. --Dominic 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP! as per MJCdetroit. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]] CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- serbiana -  talk  18:57, 30 April 2006 (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 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:CPS series
The template refers to a series of Super Soaker water gun models (See Super Soaker and CPS 2000). Only one of these pages exists. The template is effectively a request for a very large amount of information about a very narrow topic. Unencyclopedic; this belongs on "supersoakerfans.com" or some such site.
 * Delete. PatrickFisher 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe one day wikipedia will have articles covering all those toys, but until that day, this template is completely useless. --Andrew c 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Andy123  (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2006 (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 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citepaper
Each of these has the following issues: 1) The parameters are only uppercase, which means that URL=http://www.url.com does not equal url=http://www.url.com (most commonly used on cite web et al), 2) None of the parameters are optional (unlike cite book, cite web, etc), 3) They are redundant to cite paper, which was created because of these reasons. 4) Three other templates of a similar name were created to allow for optional parameters (version, publisher, and both), which has been taken into consideration with cite paper. The templates have now been deprecated and migrated using WP:AWB (using this script), and are pointless except for their use in some userpages, talkpages, and Wikipedia namespace (this is a simple matter to convert, though). Hence, I'm suggesting their deletion. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and good job that editor… —Phil | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ligulem 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the apparently only current use of Citepaper in an article (Rick_Ross) to use .  That article also uses another deprecated template  . MeekMark 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Deprecate and delete, per Jude. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --James 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag Citepaper with Tdeprecated; it is not unlikely that this might be recreated by a well-meaning editor.
 * Delete the remaining three. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:38, 28 April 2006 (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 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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Suicidehelp
Were this a template designed to exist as a userbox, it would likely be appropriate (assuming arguendo one believes userboxes may display points-of-view). In its current iteration, though, the template intimates that it reflects policy (see, e.g., in the employment of the collective "we"), where surely there is no policy, and, in any case, is irredeemably POV (one may consider, I suppose, a template that exists only to convey that Wikipedia is not a resource one ought to consult toward the determination of whether he/she ought to kill him/herself, but even such a template would likely be POV, inexpicably elevating postings about suicide above postings about, say, religion; we don't, and oughtn't, to have a template suggesting that those who come to Wikipedia in order that they might decide which is the one true religion that they ought to follow should search elsewhere). Even as the POV the external link advocates (scilicet, that one oughtn't to kill him/herself) is one with which, in general, most here likely concur, it is nevertheless a POV, and, in any case, we should not have templates directing users that they ought to take a search elsewhere because we haven't information for them; they will likely reach that conclusion without our telling them. Hence, delete. Joe 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for those who were concerned about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in the admin space have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page.  Discussion is a better alternative.  Thanks to the creator for the proactive response to negative comments must be expressed, though. Colon el  Tom 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though. + +Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it. the wub "?!"  17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per above --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource.  But lo!  WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide.  While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal.  Let's reach out in a WP way. - PatrickFisher 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I think we ought to have a Template:Suicidehelp and it should have the same content as the existing "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. - PatrickFisher 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think someone having suicidal thoughts is going to be swayed by someone posting a template for them and this template only encourages people to post it instead of talking to them. Kotepho 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What's next, marriage proposal via template? Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Why have I been fooling around with these self-help ideas when we can do proposals, vows, even toasts, all via template! Just think!   could lead to   , unless there's a   , which would then be resolved by    and followed by   . Then,   ,   , and   ,   ,   ,   , all before   . Hopefully, no divorce templates will be coming, as I have yet to design   ,   , and the inevitable   .  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you've never had a life partnet. Everyone knows ''' comes first! All joking aside, someone should get Jimbo to register WikiWedding NOW. People have been married underwater, in space, in WoW... but never on a wiki... imagine the edit summaries! GarrettTalk 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. -- Andy123  (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as variously described above. GarrettTalk 12:48, 28 April 2006 (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 page.