Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 28



Template:Image uploaded by user pcb21

 * 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 replace with GFDL, then delete. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template used for one user's purposes. Should be userfied.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * userfy per nom. Thryduulf 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm strongly against personalized copyright status tags. Just use . If you want to put the other stuff in a personalized template, go ahead, but using the standard copyright tags allows editors to determine the status of images much more quickly.  Pagra shtak  19:03, 1 September 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.

Template:MySpace-community

 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundant to MySpace. Ratarsed 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect.  howch e  ng   {chat} 15:59, 29 August 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.

Template:User LOTR5

 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template is redundent to. It says to exact same thing. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant — Mi ra  05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and point transclusions to userfied version. Charon X /talk 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In a couple days I'll go and switch the transclusions around then. Replace user LOTR5 with . -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Explanation This may seem pedantic of me, but I don't regard either the book or the film as a trilogy. Many other Lord of the Rings fans would be of the same opinion, especially with regard to the book. William Quill 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Then we could just change the other template to not include the word "trilogy". Or make it an option to have the word or not. That's not hard. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant. Daniel's page    ☎  03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless. DivineBaboon 20:32, 2 September 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.

Template:Latest preview release/ExoSee

 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Its article, ExoSee, was deleted. With the article gone, no need to keep its versioning templates. See also the tfd below this one for the stable template. Kevin_b_er 05:51, 28 August 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.

Template:Latest stable release/ExoSee

 * 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. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Its article, ExoSee, was deleted. With the article gone, no need to keep its versioning templates. See also the tfd above this one for the preview template. Kevin_b_er 05:51, 28 August 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.

Template:Geographical Macedonia

 * 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

template used only on two articles. It claims to be a geographical map, but the only clearly visible ingredients are the 21st century political boundaries. The map is garish, and the geography is washed out. The caption is a lengthy (and, unsurprisingly, somewhat tendentious) account of the claims of extreme irredentist groups. This information is already included in both articles; this is therefore both redundant and undue weight. A clearer representation of the borders of Macedonia is already available. Septentrionalis 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC) right|326px|
 * delete as nom. One map which shows the bounds of "Macedonia" as a geographical entity more clearly is from macedonia intro at right. Septentrionalis 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasons:
 * Template is a geographical map (sat image) taken from NASA World Wind.
 * There are 3 highly distinctive ingredients, all with transparent colors, in order to be able to see the geographic features below:
 * The boundaries of the whole region
 * The boundaries of each main and minor sub-region
 * Today's country borders
 * Caption is not lengthy, and clearly illustrates the names of the sub-regions
 * The proposed substitution map is much less informative, since the borders of Macedonia are not clear, because 'Macedonia' itself is not a clear term.
 * Regarding caption length, I shrunk the text size, and removed excessive hard returns.
 * Unsurprisingly this deletion nomination is biased, since the 'claims of extreme irredentist groups', are only linked in footnotes below, as the are also in the relative articles, with accurate and complete citation. See featured article Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia (region). :N i k o S il v e r:  11:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How does that prove bias? I accept the statement that they are "extreme irredentist groups"; both articles go on to say that they have been explicitly repudiated by the Constitution of FTROM. They are, therefore, a fringe position in a relatively small ethnic group (compared to the Greeks or the Bulgarians, say). Discussing them twice is undue weight. Septentrionalis 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do we discuss them twice in the template? It only has the footnote links. "Bias", is a response to "and, unsurprisingly, somewhat tendentious". Please read Talk:Macedonia (terminology) to see that there are significant indications that this fringe position is (or may be) endorsed by the official government (which contradicts the present wording in the article that states 'These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia...'). I am still reluctant to add this information in the article and change that sentence because I have requested more parts of the sources' text. This is very duely weighted in view of all that, (irrespectively of the otherwise innocent template of course). :N i k o S il v e r:  09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the nomination: this is once in the template and again in each of the articles. Septentrionalis 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is it in the template? It's only in the article text. :N i k o S il v e r:  17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per NikoSilver. --Telex 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see a problem. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful template. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly designed, contains invokations of the ref template, pointing to, whatever the hell that refers to... can't possibly be a good thing, and sounds not unlike POV-pushing. — CharlotteWebb 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It refers to the endnotes in the two articles where it is used. Read the featured article Macedonia (terminology), which has been distinguished as the only NPOV article in the Macedonia category by all sides. :N i k o S il v e r:  11:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominated this template because it is only trace of tendentiousness in Macedonia (terminology), an otherwise excellent article. Septentrionalis 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the tendentiousness in the template? :N i k o S il v e r:  17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The proposed alternative macedonia intro is not a geographic map, so is an inferior substitute, not a superior substitute. If the footnotes could be moved into the articles and out of the template, that would be good, but that is a content discussion I don't feel strongly about.  Those footnotes are the only hint of non-NPOV I see in the template, and they are clearly solvable.  So I don't see this template as fitting any of the reasons for deletion at the top of the page.  GRBerry 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but a pejorative or irredentist name, even within a template, cannot be left without at least a footnote mark. I consider the footnote texts quite illucidating, while at the same time I do not feel they may be regarded as POV. I am posting them right below (sorry for the clutter):


 * n-[1] During the Greek Civil War, in 1947, the Greek Ministry of Press and Information published a book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis ("Designs on Greece"), namely of documents and speeches on the ongoing Macedonian issue, many translations from Yugolsav officials. It reports Josip Broz Tito using the term "Aegean Macedonia" on the October 11, 1945 in the build up to the Greek Civil War; the original document is archived in ‘GFM A/24581/G2/1945’. For Athens, the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, (also “Pirin Macedonia”), was introduced by Yugoslavs. Contextually, this observation indicates this was part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece, laying claim to Greek Macedonia, but Athens does not take issue with the term itself. The 1945 date concurs with Bulgarian sources. Further information on this can be found in the article Aegean Macedonia.


 * n-[2] Despite a history of use by Bulgarian nationalists, the term "Pirin Macedonia" is today regarded as offensive by certain Bulgarians, who assert that it is widely used by Macedonists as part of the irredentist concept of United Macedonia. However, many people in the country also think of the name as a purely geographical term, which it has historically been. Its use is, thus, controversial.


 * In contrast, the article's text, deals with those terms on a much stronger tone:
 * Extremist ethnic Macedonian nationalists of the "United Macedonia" movement have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (in Greece),[18], [19], [20] "Pirin Macedonia" (in Bulgaria),[21] "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (in Albania),[22] and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (in Serbia).[23] Greek Macedonians, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs form the overwhelming majority of the population of each part of the region respectively. These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia, especially since 1995 when a constitutional amendment was added stating that there were no territorial claims on neighbouring countries.


 * For the latter part (about no official encouragement), there are serious indications that such encouragement exists (see here and here). Despite this, we have not yet modified this sentence, waiting for more text from these sources. :N i k o S il v e r:  21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. Template is now par of a Featured Article. Creative use of templates, tasteful execution. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 31 August 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.