Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 22



Template:Unencyclopedic

 * 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, defaulting to keep. ^ demon [omg plz] 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)



This is the second nomination of this template. Last one resulted in keep, but in last deletion discussion no one pointed out that, this template is just redundant. Because it is intended to be put on an article that is unencyclopedic and should be deleted, people just need to simply put those "unencyclopedic" articles to WP:AFD and delete them. This template is unnecessary due to the existence of AFD, which provides discussion of deleting unencyclopedic articles. Wooyi 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per nominator's description, this sounds like a good template for saying "I'm too lazy to delete this now, please someone nominate." -- intgr 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's possible that someone wants further input before nominating it for deletion, but if they do, than this is meta-information that doesn't belong on an article. Just discuss it on the talk page or nominate for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This template is not only used to tag entire articles but also sections within articles, e.g. the Hints section at MIDlet. In some cases though there is a more specific tag that applies. For example at CF-105_Arrow I changed it to Cleanup-laundry. I have requested the assistance of WP:LAUNDRY in sorting these out, but they do not seem very active. –Pomte 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment I think that a good solution would be to split this up into multiple templates. This eliminates possible misuse of the word "unencyclopedic." It would have to be usable for both articles and sections, though. This one is merely meant for articles. Grace notes T  § 05:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I take "unencyclopedic" to mean anything not belonging to this encyclopedia. Category:Cleanup templates covers a range of possibilities. –Pomte 06:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unencyclopedic is defined pretty clearly here... there are only three basic cleanup templates for an unencyclopedic article: prod, db, or afd. An unencyclopedic section of an article (which the that category cleanup templates generally refer to) is a different story. Grace notes T  § 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How come you say "this one is merely meant for articles"? The template says "this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted." –Pomte 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Must have skimmed over that... grrr. I thought that I double-checked it. Oh well. The general gist of my comment is:
 * For sections, use a specific template, rather than just saying "unencyclopedic". Don't just put this template on it for a bunch of quotes; but quotefarm. If the existence of a section is being debated, surely there are more specific templates for that, and if not, I'll create them.
 * I'm still thinking about what to do with articles that don't fit the scope of WP:NOT. Maybe the same idea of specific templates would work. What do you think?
 * Grace notes T § 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on 1. For 2, I can't think of a case where someone would think an entire article is unencyclopedic, and hence should be deleted, but they should tag it unencyclopedic instead of using afd/prod/db. For articles that escape WP:NOT, such as in popular culture articles, AfD is the usual applied solution. –Pomte 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "escape". Regardless, an "in popular culture" article, in and of itself, is encyclopedic. However, a page that contains indiscriminately selected information is not. This is according to the definitions at WP:NOT... and it's best not to bend them. Grace notes T  § 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean articles that don't fit the scope of WP:NOT. And that is exactly the dilemma with the in popular culture AfDs: I too think they are encyclopedic, but many claim they are indiscriminately selected information, or worse, "indiscriminate information", citing WP:NOT, which is technically a bend of the definition. This is getting off-topic though. I should probably mention Delete. –Pomte 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This template implies that some process may be going on that will or could end up with the article being deleted, which is not actually the case. The associated category is rather small and contains quite a lot of content disputes (e.g. every single character from Soulcalibur is on there because of a dispute). The other parts of the cat could be put here, which is a cleanup system that's actually in use.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. No, no, no... We have WP:PROD, WP:AFD, and notability, all of which are redundant with this in some way. The definition of "unencyclopedic" is vague and doesn't always coincide with our deletion policy... And the wording is overly officious and doesn't make sense to me. "This is primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity"? Imagine if someone sees that on their bio. Grand  master  ka  07:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Echoing the comment by Pomte, here is an example. --Mista-X 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't inappropriate tone work there? Since tone is the narrator's attitude towards his/her subject, this covers the obvious NPOV concerns as well. Grace notes T  § 06:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or change text per nom. Originally I thought of notability, but this is different: this specifically implies the article ought to be deleted. This is a bad idea: either propose deletion or don't. And as gracenotes has pointed out tone would have been better. However, the text of the template might be barely palpable if we got rid of the should be deleted part and brought it more into line with notability. Patstuarttalk·edits 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. First, I think importance and notability cover this turf adequately. Second, I have seen this one used less and less in the 2+ years I've been editing. Therefore, I think the community knows this template is redundant and effectively deprecated. Any real concerns it raises can and should be dealt with on either the talk page or through AFD. Daniel Case 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - we already have three deletion processes and numerous cleanup tags. Per Daniel, importance and notability cover this well enough. The current template also asserts a deletion process, which is not the case - 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the template may be used as a "last chance for keeping", when a section is going to be deleted. Rjgodoy 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's unencyclopedic, it's unencyclopedic. Information which is not encyclopedic can not be "cleaned up" to make it encyclopedic; new information must be added. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have used it recently to solicit feedback for a fairly obscure article (Psychogenetics): a concern was raised on the talk page that the subject, or rather the interpretation of the subject as presented, was unencyclopedic. The subject did not, however, seem to lack notability or importance, as a new, revised version has now been written since deletion of the previous version. –Unint 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a tone would have been in order there? I don't have access to the previous revisions, so I wouldn't know. Grace notes T  § 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't tone. It was a crank interpretation of a term with a different, non-crank meaning (so far as I can tell). –Unint 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I think my problem with deleting this is that neither nor  nor  explicitly suggest that there are comments on the talk page that should be responded to (and indeed many people use  without a word on the talk page). This does, and therefore I used it to mark talk page concerns that I couldn't quite fathom myself. –Unint 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "This should be deleted" already has AFD and prod; this is redundant. -Sean Curtin 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The suggested VfD process is too complicated except for WP experts, the template name is very convenient (who does remember all those cryptic abbreviations? Pavel Vozenilek 12:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. After trying to resolve the issues on some of the transcluding articles, this template has been useful for ambiguous situations such as "should this be merged or deleted" and "this list should either be kept as it is or deleted entirely, and I'm not bold enough to do the latter." Sometimes it takes too much effort to find the exact template in Category:Cleanup templates that most appropriately tags a specific section to show that it violate some specific policy. Anyone coming across the tag can use WP:COMMON SENSE to see what is wrong. If delete, it should redirect somewhere because the name is just so intuitive, but what else can cover the general case? –Pomte 14:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anyone who doesn't know policy well enough to specify what is wrong with an article doesn't know policy well enough to identify which problems are actually 'unencyclopedic'. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 2 April 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 section.

Template:Episode navigators

 * 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All instances have been substituted/replaced by Episode navigation or Infobox Television episode. These showspecific templates are therefor no longer necessarry. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per consensus. :P [or actually: TheDJ said it well, and these deletions should be non-controversial] Grace notes T  § 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 March 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 section.

Template:USCongresses

 * 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 ^ demon [omg plz] 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)



Although I prefer the look and content of this template, User:Stilltim has strongly supported a similar template, USCongressTerms, and the use of both templates is redundant. Stilltim is doing a much better job of maintaining consistency across the 113 articles which use these templates. Thus, I recommend deleting USCongresses and redirecting it to USCongressTerms. — —Markles 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * #REDIRECT Template:USCongressTerms. Merging a general navigational template for congress with this one for terms is a good idea. I would say that it's been deprecated, then. Grace notes T  § 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, delete once all replacements have... taken place. Grace notes T  § 20:26, 22 March 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 section.

Template:Airbus aircraft 2

 * 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 ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)



Not used, Airbus aircraft seems to do the job well enough. — Sherool (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the other one is more standard, and better organized. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T  § 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 06:58, 1 April 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 section.