Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 2



June 2, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:English Division One teams
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.--Ssbohio 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. These could probably be consolidated into one category. --Coredesat 00:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grand  master  ka  19:59, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:English Division Two teams
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.--Ssbohio 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grand  master  ka  19:59, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:English Division Three teams
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.--Ssbohio 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.QuizQuick 00:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grand  master  ka  19:59, 4 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NYCS Manhattan Bridge templates
The following templates serve very, very limited purposes: They list the NYC subway services that access the north/south tracks of the Manhattan Bridge from various locations (DeKalb Avenue station, the BMT Broadway Line local tracks, the BMT Brighton Line, and the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. They had previously been used in, at most, one article each, and I have subst-ed them in the respective articles; they are now all orphaned. These templates should never be used again, since I am reworking the template system at WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates and removing these nine, seeing as how they have next to no purpose&mdash;and what little purpose they have can easily be handled without creating whole templates for perhaps one or two articles. &mdash; Larry V (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)




















 * Delete per nom. Also, please consolidate these into one subcategory. --Coredesat 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Consolidation done. &mdash; Larry V (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.--Ssbohio 22:27, 2 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie certificates
Spent a good time editing this template tonight to improve it, then found that only one article linked to it.. (see here). I have since subst the template on the one article. It currently uses very confusing names for the ratings fields, and I'm not sure if there's a demand for a template like this. I'd rather have someone else start from scratch when the time comes than try to find this guy a home. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it seems like a good template. Random the Scrambled 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but no articles use it and (from what I can tell) no one knows about it. -- Ned Scott 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, per above. --Coredesat 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, make the fields less confusing if need be, and find some articles to put it in. --tjstrf 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. A diamond in the rough, it would seem.--Ssbohio 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. QuizQuick 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess I can see if WikiProject Films has a use for it, but I'd rather not spend more time on this template than I already have when I don't know if there's a demand for it. And if there's a demand, it could be apart of a different format all together, such as ratings info with some other international-based info (such as rating and release date by nation, etc).  I don't even know if it actually includes all the major rating systems.  I left a message about the TfD on the talk page of the user who created the template, but haven't heard anything back yet.  When I updated it I pretty much replaced most of the template "code", and it really wouldn't be hard to reproduce the whole thing again. I'm not even sure if this is the best way to phrase the information in the articles. Seems silly to try to find the template a home before we even know these things. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, and this template also has am unused redirect (Template:Infobox Movie Certificates) that probably should be deleted even if this template is kept. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - I was a bit concerned about this template taking up a lot of space, so I did a test and it looked pretty good in one of the film articles I work on, so let's keep this one. (Ibaranoff24 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment I edited it some more so the variables aren't so confusing, and yeah, as mentioned above, it now takes up less space than it originally did. Maybe there is a place for this template after all? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it, keep it, keep it! KEEP IT! --Ryanasaurus0077 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's useful, it's neat, it's comprehensive, and as for it not being on many articles...well, I'll start spreading the word, and others can start putting it on more famous films, like Gone With The Wind, and Star Wars, and The Godfather. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the template, I was hoping Ryanasaurus0077 would have provided a bit more insight than that. Oh well, it will probably be kept anyways. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - this sure beats having this info in the main film infobox, which has recently been proposed on that discussion page. Just one thing... perhaps there should be a separation for the English/French/German-speaking regions of Belgium, just as there is for Quebec and the rest of Canada.  Also, it should be renamed to "Infobox film certificates".Esn 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep, good and useful template. Hera1187 07:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to retract my nomination for deletion This template has been improved upon, and seemed to be well received. It is no longer in danger of being an orphan, and seems to be useful. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Czech composers
Delete this template as unencyclopaedic. This template contains pictures of three Bohemian composers (Antonin Dvorak, Bedrich Smetana and Bohuslav Martinu and one Moravian composer (Leos Janacek), under the heading ‘The Great Four’. It has been placed in the articles of the four composers concerned without any explanation or justification in the text of the articles.

‘The Great Four’ is not used in English as a description of these composers. (Indeed many would query whether Martinu is on the same level as the other three). (see discussions here and here). The creator of the template User:Antidote has on request given only one source, on the Internet, for the use of this term. It is not used in any of the standard musical dictionaries or histories. Indeed it is clearly a ‘manufactured term’ which cannot have been used about these composers while they were alive (unlike, for example, ‘the Mighty Handful’ used of Mussorgsky and his circle) as Smetana was dead six years before Martinu was born. There is already a Category:Czech composers in which these composers are listed.

This template therefore seems to be a clear case of an attempt to use Wikipedia to foist encyclopaedic acceptance of a term generally unrecognised elsewhere. It contributes nothing to the articles where it has been placed, except to clutter them up (in each case) with pictures of three composers not dealt with in the article.

Several attempts have been made on the above basis by myself (and others) to remove this template from the articles where it has been placed, but it is always shortly afterwards replaced, (sometimes with a rude message to the remover), and always from an unlogged IP address. It is not for me to speculate, of course, as to whether these reinstatements are from a sock-puppet. Therefore I propose deletion as a straightforward solution. Smerus 06:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete per Smerus. It's also ridiculously large and ugly. Tuf-Kat 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, there's only four links in the template. Random the Scrambled 11:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary and potential OR or at least neologism. --tjstrf 00:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary, and not used anywhere. --Coredesat 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. HenryFlower 12:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbritrary, POV and unnecessary. Grand  master  ka  20:01, 4 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 by -- Pil  o  t|  guy  23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User intercal
Delete Speaks for itself: "This user hates you, and insists that you learn to program in Intercal", if that's not divisive and inflammatory I don't know what is. Also, the fact that the original creator's edit summary read "I'm doomed" would suggest that this was a bad faith template in the first place. Apologies, having read the justification, I retract this portion of the comment. (After deleting, a factual rewrite would not be opposed) tjstrf 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--YGagarin 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Random the Scrambled 11:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the creator of this userbox, I'll admit that I'm a little surprised that it has taken this long to be nominated for deletion. But before this discussion on this apparently "inflammatory statement" continues much longer, may I suggest that you first look at intercal, & ponder over the possibility that there might be any humorous content to this userbox? Then you might want to take a look at the user pages that this userbox appears on, & determine just how many of these Wikipedians might actually understand the joke -- last time I checked, I suspected less than a third did. (Maybe the rest think that the intentionally gawdawful colors & layout are attractive.) -- llywrch 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I read the article on Intercal, and I realize that it was intended as a joke, but I believe this is exactly the sort of template "divisive and inflammatory" was designed to cover: templates that are blatently and purposefully insulting to someone. (in this case, everyone who reads it) --tjstrf 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are eager to immediately delete this template despite either my intent in its creation or whatever I say -- or whether anyone has claimed to be offended by this userbox. (Yourself excluded, of course.) The wording of the userbox strongly depends on an understanding of irony -- & I can't help but concluding that by delting this userbox, we are only succeeding in making Wikipedia safe for those people lacking the ability to understand irony.
 * One final note Tjstrf: you have accused me of bad faith above when I created this userbox. My comment was not meant to convey that; I wrote it, late at night, to acknowledge that by creating a userbox at that moment it appeared that I was taking a side in a divisive battle on Wikipedia. (I still remember Tony Sideway's zealous post to ENwiki-L that "Userboxes must die".) I have been very civil in this matter, & as long as this matter follows reasonable protocol & civility I have no objections to the outcome of this discussion. I would appreciate it if you removed that comment -- otherwise my disappointment in this whole matter can only deepen & discourage me further about Wikipedia. -- llywrch 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection noted, but it still meets the criteria for deletion. I understand irony perfectly well, and I also do not think that "Userboxes must die", and further find Tony Sidaway's abuse of the T1 criteria for his object of getting rid of all userboxes repugnant. None of that, however, changes that templates which fall under a valid and narrow reading of T1 and are being nominated honestly for those reasons are valid for deletion, and I didn't even call for a speedy on this. I have struck out the bad faith comment though, as now that I know the context of that statement it makes sense. --tjstrf 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that, Tjstrf. -- llywrch 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. It's still potentially inflammatory, and shouldn't even be in the userspace. --Coredesat 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Potentially inflammatory? What isn't?  Per T1 a userbox must actually be divisive and inflammatory to warrant deletion.  This is an ironic statement of interest in an obscure programming language.  A literal reading of it as a statement of hatred isn't realistic.--Ssbohio 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like someone already deleted it and also protected it from re-creation. I don't oppose the deletion, but protecting it is overkill.  A userbox reading, "This person knows Intercal" could be useful, as could some template adding info about intercal to relevant articles. --M @ r ē ino 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly oppose out-of-process deletions because we should never use for ourselves tools which we would oppose in the hands of those whith whom we disagree. This template should be restored as an out-of-process deletion & a gross disrespect to the TfD process & the Wikipedia tradition of consensus.--Ssbohio 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close -- Keep It may be arguable that the userbox is inflammatory, especially to those who don't see the humor, but it's hard to argue that the userbox is both divisive and inflammatory, the two-prong test espoused by T1. No other policy violations have been alleged, so there seems no reason to prolong this.--Ssbohio 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment(edit conflict) Yes, I disagree with the protection as well, as I said in my initial post. Well, there's always "User intercal programmer" I guess. Curse you, whoever deleted that! You just created a controversy over what should have been a non-controversial deletion if it had been conducted via proper process! --tjstrf 21:59, 2 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.