Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 13



June 13, 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. IceKarma&#x0950; 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Canadian School
Deprecated in favour of Template:Infobox Education in Canada. Usgnus 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT - Infobox Education in Canada is really awkward. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Infobox Canadian School is no longer used by any articles. The few references that remain in talk pages is to redirect people to the new infobox.  --Stephane Charette 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stephane's reasoning above. --Wisd e n17 10:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 04:27, 22 June 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. IceKarma&#x0950; 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Beograduni
Template links to articles that mostly don't exist and really don't deserve their own articles. Ydam 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep has three articles already. Im sure the rest will get filled in time --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Those articles are likely to end up getting merged in to the main parent article though, are articles on individual university faculties notable enough that we should be encouraging their creation with templates like these Ydam 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary large linkfests of templates. Septentrionalis 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. University faculties don't get their own pages. Relavent content should be placed on the main university page.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 04:26, 22 June 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. IceKarma&#x0950; 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Academic Departments, University of Warwick
Just a collection of external links, with an non fair use image. Delete Ian3055 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Subst into University of Warwick, where it is fair use. Then delete. Septentrionalis 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete from page and delete template. This is far too many external links to have on one page. Just go to the site instead...I am sure they have a navigation window there.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 04:25, 22 June 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. IceKarma&#x0950; 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist
Deprecated template. Replaced by Template:Infobox musical artist 2. CG 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete accordingly. --Coredesat 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why don't you merge the other into this one? The name would be more friendly, without the "2". Afonso Silva 12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When it gets deleted, I'll move the one with the 2 using a bot. CG 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Template:Infobox musical artist 2, deprecating this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:10, 19 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:WP:meat-puppet
Seems useless, just links to meat-puppet, nothing more. Rory096 06:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. its not useless, I use it very often. Just look at the pages linking ti it! I made it because I was tyred of writting meat-puppet, WP:meat-puppet, which I use very oftern, is much easier to write and to remember. I recently had much problems with meat-puppets.

Meat-puppetry is very serious problem here and it's neglected for ne reason. People have problem explaining what it is since it's rarelly discussed. This way, Im trying to make it more accessible.

So, it is very usefull for me, and it will be udes even more when we start writtinf WP:RFC for those meat-puppets we have problems with.

Please, leave it. --Ante Perkovic 07:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, useless template. --Coredesat 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WHY??? How can be used and usseless in the same tame? What is your problem? Does this template hurts someone??? Does it break any rules??? I need it and I use it! Besided, it is used on many pages and by removing it, those pages would be full of red link to this template!
 * I have enough trouble explaining people recent problems with meat-puppets and now you want to make it even hareder for me? Why?
 * Just, leave it alone, for wiki's sake! --Ante Perkovic 08:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, then, I'll abstain. You've made a good argument. --Coredesat 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether or not this template is useful, it should still not have anything linking to it. Something like this is meant to be substituted, not included.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just use meat-puppet . Using templatespace instead of proper redirects is abuse of the Template namespace. jgp (T|C) 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even tried to click on meat-puppet? I guess not, since there is a small, but crucial difference between meat-puppet and WP:meat-puppet - template leads to start od the chapter, which is very short and hard to find, if you are at the top of the page. Although, if someone can tell me how to make redirect that doesn't redirect to the top of the page, I'll be willing to accept deleting of this template. I'm just trying to be practical! So, I have to ask again: Does this template hurts someone??? --Ante Perkovic 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki software doesn't support this. Invitatious 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Template of Wiki markup, and not of a common term. Just type in meat puppet each time you need it. —Cuivi é nen 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, what a hell, just phuc**ng delete it. I give up! You, birocrats....
 * BTW, I expect that the one who actually deletes it will also change all the pages that include this template.--Ante Perkovic 17:21, 14 June 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. IceKarma&#x0950; 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:TBA
Pretty useless, and for its purpose far too verbose. No real need for this template, and not even being used.  Alfakim  --  talk   14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Added Comment - it is being used on the Houston Dynamo page. Kashami 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As of when is it not being used? I applied it in several places when I saw the "TBA" lack of conformity in different articles.
 * Delete No longer used (single instance substed), and it's a single line of text that doens't merit a template. -- Drini 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Request please, if you need to write only a single line of text, do it so. -- Drini 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If someone uses it, why not? This would not be the first unused template even if it wasn't used.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 04:23, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Turkic
This template contains a lot of false information and (nationalistic) POV. Actually, this entire template is POV, like creating a template called "Germanic" and then counting all kinds of histrical kingdoms in it. This template is claiming dynasties and peoples as "Turkic" of whom we almost know nothing about, for example the Huns (a heterogenious group of all kinds of backgrounds, including Turkic, but certainly not predominantly Turkic), Avars (a totally unknown, probably Mongol tribal confederation), Hephthalites (a probably Indo-European, most-likely Iranian nomadic confederation), Khwarizmshahs (a dynasty of unknown origin), Mughals (a Persian-speaking dynasty of Mongol origin in India), etc etc etc. So, no matter how you look at it, it's filled with wrong information and POV, most of all because it propagates some kind of an "ethnic identity" that has not existed in those dynasties. Tajik 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This template has many flaws as the nom points out.--WilliamThweatt 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This template is very misleading and inaccurate. Nationalism of this sort is becoming rampant on WP we need more people dedicated to weeding these sorts of things out. It's going to hurt the reputation of WP if it's allowed to continue. --WilliamThweatt 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as classic T1: inflammatory and divisive. Angr (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy per Angr. As long as we have T1, it might as well be used. Septentrionalis 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This template categorizes these empires under their linguistic and cultural features. It is already how the nations are classified in todays world. I dont agree that it is nationalistic either. Metb82 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Angr. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and develop. Man, after having read the article Kingdom of Kurdistan (of which there were apparently actually two, the first having lasted 2 years, and the second 3 months). I would say anything goes in wikipedia, at least as far as history is concerned:) Cretanforever
 * Comment - I agree the Kingdom of Kurdistan article is problematic, to say the least, but the existence of one bad article doesn't justify keeping another.--WilliamThweatt 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't referring to it as a justification. I can propose a gentleman's agreement in the context: You resolve that article (because I certainly do not want to go into it for nothing in the world, although I certainly do think that there is start-up material in there for a Sheikh Said Rebellion article that I can contribute once formed), AND, I can put this template into a reasonable format. It's a proposal. Cretanforever


 * Delete per Angr. --Tēlex 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. :N i k o S il v e r:  20:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Hectorian 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Way too many empires to be believable). --TigranTheGreat 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Eupator 03:12, 18 June 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.