Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 29



Template:Fundraising, etc.

 * 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 all. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Used on an apparent copy-and-paste transfer of Fundraising to Fundraising. I've replaced the latter with a soft redirect; the templates in question wouldn't work anyway because they require raw HTML. I think these deletions should be uncontroversial but they don't seem to fall under any of WP:CSD. æ² ✆ 2006&#x2011;12&#x2011;29t17:45z
 * Delete per nom. What on earth was this user trying to do? Resolute 20:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - all created by one user a couple of days ago with no other edits. I'm guessing it was some kind of mistake. Orderinchaos78 09:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ordinary-speed delete per WP:IAR; templates which inherently don't work should probably be deleted. I'm considering speedy-delete as a test page but it doesn't quite fit. --ais523 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; harmless experimentation should always be encouraged, but unusable results need to go. -/- Warren 03:45, 31 December 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:Notability asserted (and related category, per WP:CSD)

 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Not in use, but it encourages editors to "assert" that the subject of an article is notable because they say so, rather than demonstrating why exactly that subject is notable. We want facts, not opinions; Bill Gates isn't notable because I say so, but because he founded Microsoft. Note that this template would technically be appropriate to every article, because articles that aren't asserted-as-notable tend to be speedily deletable.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nomination. Assertions of notability need to in the article, elaborations can go on the talkpage, arguments for why this is notable can go in an AFD debate if it is necessary (and an ill-advised AFD nomination which gets shot down is not the end of the world). In no case do we need a template for this. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, "I think it's notable" is irrelevant; evidence counts, not what editors think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Notability should be clearly asserted in the article and supported by citations. If there is doubt, then it probably deserves to go to AFD. The JPS talk to me  16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you think something is notable, you assert it well in the article and say so in any AfD. You don't round up a couple inclusionists (and for the articles on which you would actually need to use this, you'll need ones even more ardent than User:Badlydrawnjeff, which probably means people with a conflict of interest) and say "Ha ha, you can't AfD this now". -Amarkov blahedits 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Asserting that something is notable does not mean saying "this is notable".  And in any case, if it is notable, then it should easily survive AfD, so there's no point in asking (begging?  demanding?) for it not to be nominated.   Aside: does it say something bad about me that the first thing I did when I saw this template was check "What Links Here" to see if that would reveal some articles that were ripe for an AfD?  (But I'm not a deletionist, I swear.  I'm a AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTDist.)  :)  Xtifr tälk 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm a bit wary about anything official-looking that advises users to circumvent an official (and public, and open) debate on the say-so of a handful of editors. The template was created a month ago by someone who is presently involved in an edit war on Assume_good_faith, which they are attempting to modify. Orderinchaos78 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it circumvents the public review process regarding norability. The template is also an WP:ILIKEIT argument against deletion. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the way for editors to assert the notability of a subject is to prove it within the article text and references, not by saying so. AGF is important, but will can't simply take a couple of editors' word on it. Koweja 14:36, 31 December 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:HouseCharacter

 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with generic Infobox character. Cache load, consistency, etc. (cf. Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28) -- The JPS talk to me  12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — no deletion reason provided; template appears to have a noticeably different design. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, how can I argue with a nomination that (more or less) cites me as a supporting argument? :)  Note to M. Fenton: it does indeed have a noticably different design--that's the problem!  It shouldn't!  There's a perfectly good general-purpose template which fills exactly the same purpose.  Which makes this redundant (the deletion reason) and inefficient and inconsistent.  --Xtifr tälk 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it? Provide a reason so and I will consider changing sides - until then - my opinion stands. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of such issues as WP:TS. If you don't like the way a template looks, you should edit it or discuss its layout on the talk page, not create a fork. Delete, concur with nom.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per mathewfenton. - Peregrinefisher 20:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant. If there is a specific House-related thing you want, this would be fine, but it isn't. This just seems to be a way to add information that consensus determined should not go into the character infobox. -Amarkov blahedits 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MatthewFenton. --MZMcBride 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete their is nothing in this template that isn't covered in the Infobox character template. TJ Spyke 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If it IS redundant, why bother deleting it? If you terribly, terribly hate the template...don't look at the article? RoyDMylote 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote is user's third edit. The JPS talk to me  13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment redundancy appears second on the list of reasons for deleting templates (after "not helpful or noteworthy"). I've got nothing against this perfectly-decent-looking template except that it's redundant.  Consistency is good, and this template makes articles inconsistent with other, similar articles.  Also, a widely used template is more likely to be in the cache, making access more efficient.  A special-purpose template like this has to really provide something unique to justify its costs.  This one doesn't.  Xtifr tälk 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Amarkov. Orderinchaos78 09:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Xtifr, forking a template just to change the color is not within policy.  Ral315 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xtifr. æ² ✆ 2006&#x2011;12&#x2011;31t02:25z
 * Delete per Xtifr. Its just redundant after all. Terence Ong 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - While it is nice to see 'Infobox character' being used to consolidate some of the vast collection of similiar templates (which, admittedly, was my evil plan when I created it) we should keep in mind that most of these templates were created with no knowledge that 'Infobox character' existed... or may even predate it. It would also be a good idea to keep an eye out for relevant parameters/features which don't exist in 'Infobox character'. For instance, this template has a 'time on show' parameter that might be worth adding to 'Infobox generic' as an alternative to the 'first' and 'last' appearance parameters. --CBD 10:10, 7 January 2007 (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:AustParlCatNotice

 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template was created by me to assist in reorganising categories for articles about Australian parliaments. Reorganisation was completed several months ago and template is no longer used or required. Adz|talk 10:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--cj | talk 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Orderinchaos78 07:05, 30 December 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:Nickelodeon programs

 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nickelodeon has had to many shows over the years and a template is not needed only an article and a category --Caldorwards4 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, categories are easier since Nick has a lot of programmes daily. Terence Ong 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete too broad. The JPS talk to me  12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Much more suited for a category or list. -- Kicking222 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Template's scope is far too broad to be useful.  It will either be unmaintainable or far too large. Resolute 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Navigation templates with 100 entries in 8 point font really don't help. -Amarkov blahedits 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The template is huge and would only get bigger over time as more programs debut. TJ Spyke 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; category would be better Mk3severo 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - unlikely to be useful and unlikely to be kept up-to-date. IMO categories and lists should start from a logical question of "what would people look for?" Ref WP:NOT Orderinchaos78 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 18:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. I know it's meaningless at this point but HOLY CRAP that's hideous and unreadable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Category is highly suggested.-- C  J   King  04:35, 7 January 2007 (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.