Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 29



June 29, 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 no consensus to delete --William Allen Simpson 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Disputeabout
We have, so why should this be used? I think it might cause a new user or casual web surfer to believe Wikipedia is more unreliable than it actually is. It also can give information that is better placed on the talk page with a link to it. Delete after orphaning for this. (Note that we have lots of uses which all have to be orphaned manually due to the nature of this template.) On the other hand, the other information may be useful if the fact is spread throughout the article but the entire article is not disputed. Keep in that case.

For examples, see Operation Sundevil and Road rage (where I found out about the then broken template in the first place, and fixed it). Invitatious 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing this, people should use this template as it seems to serve a good purpose of allowing a brief general summary of exact dispute so people can come to the talk page knowing exactly what to discuss rather than fishing through what could be some long talk pages looking for what in the world the dispute is. Kevin_b_er 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually think this is the most useful dispute template. The user can instantly see what the dispute is about without reading the Talk page. MrTroy 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe map already indicates it Baku87 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What map? SushiGeek 06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per MrTroy.--M @ r ē ino 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MrTroy, Mareino, and Jtdirl. SushiGeek 06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per (deletion debate here). — Jul. 4, '06  [10:46] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Keep Instead of removing the tag, let's develop a policy about proper using it. Please do not treat scurf with a guillotine.--AndriyK 12:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per the deletion debate on POV-because which can be found here. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per freak and Grafikm.--Pan Gerwazy 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons as here.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per freak and Grafikm BenBurch 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful.--Brownlee 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's more useful to add a disputed-section or disputedAssertion in the appropriate location in the page. With this tag, you need to hunt through the article to find the disputed material. --Usgnus 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if this is at all like then there are no doubt disputes over the wording specified in the  template... which is just disruptive... keep disputes on talk pages. Netscott 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful template. Please keep.--Mbuk 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if there is a dispute, readers deserve a summary before they start reading the article, as most probably won't even bother with the talk page. LossIsNotMore 18:52, 7 July 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 redir as is -- Drini 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Latter-day Saints
Duplication of links from LDS template. Merge notice placed on page earlier today by User:Gh87. Agree with merge and deletion of this template so posting here. -- Trödel 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.--M @ r ē ino 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Redundant--Brownlee 12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All non-duplicative links are now included on the LDS template -- Trödel 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How come this template is not automatically redirected to LDS? --Gh87 19:46, 6 July 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 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Monarch Basic
Replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch. Philip Stevens 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The template is unused and the other seems better. Afonso Silva 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Afonso Silva--Brownlee 12:31, 6 July 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 --William Allen Simpson 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:StormWatch
This is a weather-specific disclaimer and Wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers. It's unnecessary to point out that Wikipedia doesn't carry up to the date weather information anyway because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wire news weather service. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Template:HurricaneWarning for a similar template that was kept. It is designed with the Wikipedia-illiterate in mind. With the media picking up on this and even using this as a resource sometimes, we need a special disclaimer. Hence, Keep. CrazyC83 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Colored boxes at the top of pages are ugly though, and their use should be minimized. I just don't see any possible confusion with people coming to an encyclopedia looking for current weather news.  -- Cyde↔Weys  15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep although the Template:HurricaneWarning is generic enough to merge here. I think this is a case to bend the no disclaimer policy for three reasons: (1) Wikipedia results tend to place high in searches, (2) it is temporary and removed once dangerous conditions subside, (3) the "current" tag is a disclaimer when you think about it. &mdash;Twigboy 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. It is put up only in serious conditions, such as when there is a Flood Warning for above major flood stage, a Blizzard Warning for a serious event, or a PDS Tornado or Severe Thunderstorm Watch. It is always taken down when the watches or warnings end. CrazyC83 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We don't need this stuff, and the use of boxes on top of articles should definitely be minimized. — Mi r  a  03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be of wide applicability.--Brownlee 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The looks of a template can be changed without deletion; and unlike other cases, will not require massive redesign. This is essentially an equivalent of a current events tag, qualifying an article when it is a current event; the emphasis on geography is warranted; it doesn't seem to be lingering on any articles. (and the Keep on Hurricane warning was quite strong Septentrionalis 19:00, 6 July 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 hides what should be plain on sight, if propagates, would make almost impossible to automatically deal with categories using bots. -- Drini 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Category
This template is basically a shorthand for setting the sorting seed, so instead of typing you type. This template is non-obvious at first glance and sows confusion over how categories work. In addition, it messes up bots, which are just looking for on pages. There shouldn't be alternate syntaxes for assigning categories, and seeing an alternate strewn about rather than the standard wiki way is going to confuse people. I will, of course, substitute this template before deletion. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. Make sure they are substitued first, though. — Mets 501  (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete per nom, as this will just confuse editors for minimal benefit. I also don't understand the point of using this template in the main namespace, as many of the uses are — surely works just the same as , unless the page in question is outside the main namespace? — sjorford++ 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the uses in the main namespace are that way because a few relative newcomers think this is the correct way to declare categories :-O A scary thought.  -- Cyde↔Weys  16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Confusing as hell if you don't realize it is a template. Charon X /talk 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I still confuse {&#123;category| with {&#123;category: when I try to use this beast, and I should know how it works. Subst'ing in the main namespace is dangerous, because it's unrelated - this template was designed to categorize templates, not articles. --&#160;Omniplex 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All unprotected templates + one project page fixed. Most articles erroneously using this template (or a prior incarnation) start with A. --&#160;Omniplex 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Mi r  a  03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. SushiGeek 06:03, 4 July 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 (a copy already exists on userspace) -- Drini 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Jimbo v. Willy
While I find it funny, I nevertheless have come to find that attention-seeking vandals such as Willy keep coming back because of all the glorification that they receive. If individual users want this template on their pages, then that's up to them, but I believe that this template should be deleted from template namespace per WP:DFTT.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- Hoary 07:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, you could have at least followed TfD procedures to put the userbox up for deletion the proper way. Let me just do that.  This template seems to have been nominated for deletion before and it was a no go.  I have to warn you that this is a userbox and not a template and userboxes follow slighty different rules regardless being in the template namespace.  Douglasr007 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to my userspace under "User:Ikiroid/User Jimbo v. Willy." I was gonna just copy the code, but it's in a better interest to the contributors, including myself, to have the history with it. You're right that it doesn't belong in the template space, so I'm willing to adopt it into my userspace.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS But make sure to use pagemoves, history is important (and there is some other license-issue reason I can't recall right now)Charon X /talk 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per WP:GUS. jgp (T|C) 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to user space per Ikiroid and WP:GUS. And don't forget to use Template:GUS UBX to on the template page, and to fix user page links. — Mi r  a  03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move per Ikiroid. It is sorta trollish. I wonder if Jimbo or Willy would win? Jimbo, you're awesome, don't get me wrong, but Willy, block after block he just keeps dodging and ducking the blocks. Let's not ask stupid questions: Jimbo definitly win! :-)GangstaEB (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] • ice slides) 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move per Ikiroid and WP:GUS. --The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's already been moved. Therefore, Delete from Template space, Keep in userspace.--M @ r ē ino 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its already in user space - • The Giant Puffin •  11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Move per others. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a good joke and it gives people a laugh (I also use it on my userpage any I love it) Also, he claims to have quit Micoolio101 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101
 * Germanize per above. Misza 13 T C 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. SushiGeek 06:02, 4 July 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 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cartoon Wars
As much as I love South Park, I find this template redudant. A template for a 2 part episode isn't needed. Links to either part of the episode are easily accessed in the episode list for that season. Douglasr007 07:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. You're right, it seems a bit weird to have a template for only two articles.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grand  master  ka  05:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I rarely cast delete votes, but this one would seem appropriate. Cwolfsheep 16:46, 3 July 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.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. – Will (message me!) 12:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Country_infobox_data_(multiple TfDs)
The following is list of Templates that were created during the standardization process of the various country specific templates to the standard Template: Infobox country. Notice of TfD was given on that talk page. The original list of these templates is located at: Template_talk:Infobox_Country. These templates only hold data and are probably out of date now. This delete will not affect the respective country articles or infoboxes. There is no longer a need for them. This vote is to delete all of the following templates:



Speedy Delete. No longer needed. &mdash;MJCdetroit 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all but Template:Country infobox data Burkina Faso and Template:Country infobox data South Korea ( which are still in use - I checked them all, the rest are not ). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I switch those two to the standard. It is ok to delete all. Thanks for catching that.  These templates that are up for deletion were never intended to be used in an article.  They were intended to hold the data while the infoboxes were standardized.--MJCdetroit 12:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. Holding tanks, no longer useful. Grand  master  ka  05:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, and thanks to MJCd for doing all that work. ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:27, 1 July 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.

<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox actor movie

 * Delete Agreed Mad Jack 00:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Theres really no need for the template. Cvene64 15:06, 1 July 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.